Re: [RFC] overflow checks optimized away

From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>
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: 2014-01-16 12:19:46
Message-ID: 52D7CE62.4040002@vmware.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 11/29/2013 04:04 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
> Attached is what I have so far. I have to say I'm starting to come
> around to Tom's point of view. This is a lot of hassle for not much
> gain. i've noticed a number of other overflow checks that the llvm
> optimizer is not picking up on so even after this patch it's not clear
> that all the signed overflow checks that depend on -fwrapv will be
> gone.
>
> This patch still isn't quite finished though.

In addition to what you have in the patch, Coverity is complaining about
the overflow checks in int4abs (which is just like int8abs), and in
DetermineTimeZoneOffset.

- Heikki

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Aidan Van Dyk 2014-01-16 12:38:06 Re: drop duplicate buffers in OS
Previous Message David Rowley 2014-01-16 11:02:19 Re: [PATCH] Negative Transition Aggregate Functions (WIP)