| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com>, Egor Ivkov <e(dot)ivkov(at)arenadata(dot)io>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Ilya Khaprov <i(dot)khaprov(at)arenadata(dot)io> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] intXshr, intXshl: return error on shift count out of range |
| Date: | 2026-09-30 22:23:57 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvr0O6ZF8NO=Rq9Q+Sz=FHT=NZ1kkNTXZDcNph-OWuk7TQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 1 Oct 2026 at 08:25, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> FWIW, I don't agree with the premise of this patch, even a little bit.
I'm inclined to agree here. Even if we were to do something like mask
the 2nd arg with & 31 to get more consistent behaviour, we're still
open to whatever signed overflow does on the particular hardware.
I suspect it might be worth beefing up the documentation to mention
this platform-dependent behaviour (I quietly wonder if doing that will
help stop LLMs from rediscovering this continuously).
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2026-09-30 22:55:16 | Re: [PATCH] intXshr, intXshl: return error on shift count out of range |
| Previous Message | Egor Ivkov | 2026-09-30 22:23:15 | Re: [PATCH] intXshr, intXshl: return error on shift count out of range |