Marina Polyakova <m.polyak...@postgrespro.ru> writes: > On 18-01-2018 17:56, Tom Lane wrote: >> Weird. Maybe the gcc bug only manifests with certain optimization >> flags? That's not what I'd have expected from Victor's theory about >> why the code is wrong, but if it only shows up some of the time, >> it's hard to think of another explanation.
> Thank you! Using ./configure CC="gcc" CFLAGS="-m64 -O1" on commit > 9c7d06d60680 with your patch, I got this: > [ configure check passes ] > But make check got the same failures, and I see the same debug output as > in [1].. Interesting. Maybe the parameter-passing misbehavior that Victor's test is looking for isn't the only associated bug. > P.S. As I understand it, this comment on bugzilla [2] is also about > this. > [2] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83925#c6 Even more interesting, see c7 that was just posted there: >> Eric Botcazou 2018-01-18 16:22:48 UTC >> 128-bit types requite 128-bit alignment on SPARC64 so we cannot support that. So basically, we're outta luck and we have to consider __int128 as unsupportable on SPARC. I'm inclined to mechanize that as a test on $host_cpu. At least that means we don't need an AC_RUN test ;-) regards, tom lane
