Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lAGyu-00061O-P3 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 18:46:24 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lAGyt-00022e-LB for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 18:46:23 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lAGyt-00022X-CC for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 18:46:23 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lAGyp-00064k-Lx; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 18:46:22 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 11BIk7VF1477977; Thu, 11 Feb 2021 13:46:08 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Alexander Korotkov cc: Heikki Linnakangas , Alexander Korotkov , PostgreSQL Hackers Subject: Re: Detecting pointer misalignment (was Re: pgsql: Implementation of subscripting for jsonb) In-reply-to: References: <37bb56a0-391d-759d-771b-9c1d8c15a84b@iki.fi> <3293925.1612163110@sss.pgh.pa.us> <475514.1612745257@sss.pgh.pa.us> <477102.1612747200@sss.pgh.pa.us> <628089.1612802981@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Alexander Korotkov message dated "Tue, 09 Feb 2021 03:35:01 +0300" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1477975.1613069167.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2021 13:46:07 -0500 Message-ID: <1477976.1613069167@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Alexander Korotkov writes: > On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 7:49 PM Tom Lane wrote: >> Ugh, no it isn't: even pretty recent clang releases only define >> __GNUC__ as 4. It looks like we need a separate test on clang's >> version. I looked at their version history and sanitizers seem >> to have come in around clang 7, so I propose the attached (where >> I worked a bit harder on the comment, too). > Looks good to me. Thank you for revising! Were you going to push this, or did you expect me to? regards, tom lane