From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
Cc: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Recent failures on buildfarm member hornet |
Date: | 2020-10-07 22:22:04 |
Message-ID: | 2399356.1602109324@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 06:03:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> After thinking about it a bit more, I'm not even convinced that what
>> xlc seems to be doing is illegal per C spec. There are no sequence
>> points within
>>
>> return list_make2(list_concat(directargs, orderedargs),
>> makeInteger(ndirectargs));
> There is, however, a sequence point between list_length(directargs) and
> list_concat(), and the problem arises because xlc reorders those two. It's
> true that makeInteger() could run before or after list_concat(), but that
> alone would not have been a problem.
Yeah, that is the theory on which the existing code is built,
specifically that the list_length fetch must occur before list_concat
runs. What I am wondering about is a more aggressive interpretation of
"sequence point", namely that the compiler is free to disregard exactly
when list_concat's side-effects occur between this statement's sequence
points. I'm not sure that the C spec allows that interpretation, but
I'm not sure it doesn't, either.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2020-10-07 22:22:43 | Re: enable_incremental_sort changes query behavior |
Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2020-10-07 22:12:21 | Re: Recent failures on buildfarm member hornet |