Re: int8 & INT64_IS_BUSTED

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Florian G. Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> writes:
>> I'm confused about whether int8s work on a machine on which
>> INT64_IS_BUSTED. My reading of the code suggests that int8
>> will be available, but be, well, busted in such a machine.
>
> The datatype exists, but it's really only int32.
>
>> For example, int8mul seems as if I'd just return the wrong
>> answer on such a machine.
>
> Well, obviously it's gonna overflow sooner than you'd think, but it will
> give valid answers as long as you never try to compute a value that
> doesn't fit in int32; and it will correctly complain if you do.

I still think int8mul is buggy. It calculates result as arg1 * arg2, and then
checks for an overflow by dividing again, and seeing if the right answer
comes out. Which sounds good. But it *skips* that check if both arguments
fit into an int32 - check is
(arg1 == (int64) ((int32) arg1) && arg2 == (int64) ((int32) arg2)).

Which for INT64_IS_BUSTED seems to be equivalent to
(arg1 == arg1 && arg2 == arg2), and thus the check will never fire
in that case.

I didn't test this though - so maybe I'm just reading it wrong.

greetings, Florian Pflug