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 1lAhLH-0005pR-94 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 22:55:15 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lAhLG-0006Y3-7t for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 22:55:14 +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 1lAhLG-0006Xw-1I for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 22:55:14 +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 1lAhLE-0002vC-1z; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 22:55:13 +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 11CMt05b1611009; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 17:55:00 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Alexander Korotkov cc: Thomas Munro , 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> <1557041.1613150383@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Alexander Korotkov message dated "Sat, 13 Feb 2021 01:29:43 +0300" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1611007.1613170500.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 17:55:00 -0500 Message-ID: <1611008.1613170500@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Alexander Korotkov writes: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 8:19 PM Tom Lane wrote: >> So maybe it'd better be __GNUC__ >= 6 not __GNUC__ >= 5. I think >> we can wait a little bit for more reports before messing with that, >> though. > I've rechecked this in the documentation. no_sanitize attribute seems > to appear since gcc 8.0. Much later than alignment sanitizer itself. Yeah, I'd just come to that conclusion from scraping the buildfarm logs. Good to see it confirmed in the manual though. >> Once this does settle, should we consider back-patching so that it's >> possible to run alignment checks in the back branches too? > +1 Let's make sure we have a clean set of builds and then do that. regards, tom lane