| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Subject: | Re: v13: Performance regression related to FORTIFY_SOURCE |
| Date: | 2020-06-06 01:50:53 |
| Message-ID: | 1644593.1591408253@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, 2020-06-04 at 16:35 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> If it is something worth worrying about, let's discuss what's a good
>> fix for it.
> While making a minimal test case for the GCC bug report, I found
> another surprisingly-small workaround. Patch attached.
Ugh :-( ... but perhaps you could get the same result like this:
-#define TapeBlockPayloadSize (BLCKSZ - sizeof(TapeBlockTrailer))
+#define TapeBlockPayloadSize (BLCKSZ - (int) sizeof(TapeBlockTrailer))
Or possibly casting the whole thing to int or unsigned int would be
better. Point being that I bet it's int vs long that is making the
difference.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2020-06-06 02:06:50 | Re: v13: Performance regression related to FORTIFY_SOURCE |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2020-06-06 01:46:13 | Re: v13: Performance regression related to FORTIFY_SOURCE |