From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: planner fails on HEAD |
Date: | 2011-12-04 22:52:41 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRAW+ZOH7i=oysnCXtmmhhi8SabvJ+VhX+xSC+pHmthJHg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2011/12/4 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> 2011/12/4 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>>> [ scratches head ... ] Given that it got past the previous assertions,
>>> surely that ought to be impossible. Could we see the values of
>>> cost_mergejoin's local variables, please?
>
>> It is strange
>
>> when I put a fprintf(stderr, "const literal") to exactly before or
>> somewhere after assertion, then assertion is ok. Without fprintf
>> assertion fails again
>
>> it looks like gcc bug - gcc 4.5.1 20100924 (Red Hat 4.5.1) It was
>> configured just with --enable-debug and --enable-cassert
>
> Hmm. I'm betting that gcc has flushed one value to memory but the other
> one is still in a register that's wider than memory, creating a roundoff
> hazard. Can you look at the generated assembly code?
I can, but tomorrow evening,
I'll send a code
Regards
Pavel
>
> regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-12-04 22:55:41 | Re: planner fails on HEAD |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-12-04 22:11:07 | Re: planner fails on HEAD |