From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: strange failure in plpgsql_control tests (on fulmar, ICC 14.0.3) |
Date: | 2018-03-17 18:33:01 |
Message-ID: | 20180317183301.bcu6lvgdx7tggaoh@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2018-03-17 14:20:26 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> It might be worth studying the icc manual to see if it has an
> equivalent of -fwrapv.
Yes.
A *quick* look through https://software.intel.com/en-us/node/522795
unfortunately didn't show anything.
> Although we can and probably should fix this case by changing the
> code, I'm worried about what other bugs may exist only in icc builds.
Yea, I know that I can produce a number of "bugs" today by removing
-fwrapv for gcc, and found a few more by manual inspection. I'm sure
icc can trigger at least some of them.
> I know Andres would like to get rid of the need for -fwrapv but I
> suspect that's not really going to happen soon.
And definitely not in anything released or close to it. I do want to
get rid of it because various compilers don't have comparable flags, and
because it causes slowdowns. But I really would like to do it without
running headfirst into a wall, and that'll mean going a bit slower.
I think it'd be good practice to get rid of the known overflow hazards
by using int.h, but I don't want to drop fwrapv immediately.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2018-03-17 18:40:03 | Re: MCV lists for highly skewed distributions |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-03-17 18:32:36 | Re: strange failure in plpgsql_control tests (on fulmar, ICC 14.0.3) |