From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Mark Wong <mark(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Odd 9.4, 9.3 buildfarm failure on s390x |
Date: | 2018-10-01 21:11:02 |
Message-ID: | 29380.1538428262@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 10/01/2018 11:58 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Oooh ... apparently, on that platform, memcmp() is willing to produce
>> INT_MIN in some cases. That's not a safe value for a sort comparator
>> to produce --- we explicitly say that somewhere, IIRC. I think we
>> implement DESC by negating the comparator's result, which explains
>> why only the DESC case fails.
> Is there a standard that forbids this, or have we just been lucky up to now?
We've been lucky; POSIX just says the value is less than, equal to,
or greater than zero.
In practice, a memcmp that operates byte-at-a-time would not likely
return anything outside +-255. But on a big-endian machine you could
easily optimize to use word-wide operations to compare 4 bytes at a
time, and I suspect that's what's happening here. Or maybe there's
just some weird architecture-specific reason that makes it cheap
for them to return INT_MIN rather than some other value?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2018-10-01 21:11:41 | Re: has_column_privilege behavior (was Re: Assert failed in snprintf.c) |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2018-10-01 20:58:21 | Re: Odd 9.4, 9.3 buildfarm failure on s390x |