pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Cc: Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>
Subject: Re: Overflow hazard in pgbench
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2021 16:21:46 -0400
Message-ID: <82028.1624825306@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <73927.1624815543@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <73927.1624815543@sss.pgh.pa.us>

I wrote:
> ... according to the C99
> spec this code is broken, because the compiler is allowed to assume
> that signed integer overflow doesn't happen, whereupon the second
> if-block is provably unreachable.  The failure still represents a gcc
> bug, because we're using -fwrapv which should disable that assumption.
> However, not all compilers have that switch, so it'd be better to code
> this in a spec-compliant way.

BTW, for grins I tried building today's HEAD without -fwrapv, using
	gcc version 11.1.1 20210531 (Red Hat 11.1.1-3) (GCC) 
which is the newest version I have at hand.  Not very surprisingly,
that reproduced the failure shown on moonjelly.  However, after adding
the patch I proposed, "make check-world" passed!  I was not expecting
that result; I supposed we still had lots of lurking assumptions of
traditional C overflow handling.

I'm not in any hurry to remove -fwrapv, because (a) this result doesn't
show that we have no such assumptions, only that they must be lurking
in darker, poorly-tested corners, and (b) I'm not aware of any reason
to think that removing -fwrapv would provide benefits worth taking any
risks for.  But we may be closer to being able to do without that
switch than I thought.

			regards, tom lane





view thread (7+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <82028.1624825306@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../82028.1624825306@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/82028.1624825306@sss.pgh.pa.us

 · 

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, coelho@cri.ensmp.fr
  Subject: Re: Overflow hazard in pgbench
  In-Reply-To: <82028.1624825306@sss.pgh.pa.us>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox