| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Xi Wang <xi(dot)wang(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] overflow checks optimized away |
| Date: | 2015-12-03 14:51:49 |
| Message-ID: | 1365.1449154309@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> writes:
> What version of GCC and other compilers did we decide we're targeting now?
I can't see us moving the compiler goalposts one inch for this.
"I'm going to break building on your compiler in order to work around
bugs in somebody else's compiler" isn't gonna fly.
The original post pointed out that we haven't introduced the appropriate
equivalents of -fwrapv for non-gcc compilers, which is a good point that
we should fix. Beyond that, I'm not convinced.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2015-12-03 14:52:15 | Re: Logical replication and multimaster |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2015-12-03 13:53:25 | Re: Logical replication and multimaster |