On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 11:16:48AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 11:30:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes:
> > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 10:18:36AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> That seems like a pretty clear compiler bug, particularly since it just
> > >> appears in this one version. Rather than contorting our code, I'd
> > >> suggest filing a gcc bug.
> >
> > > I assume I have to create a test case to report this to the gcc team. I
> > > tried to create such a test case on gcc 12 but it doesn't generate the
> > > warning. Attached is my attempt. Any ideas? I assume we can't just
> > > tell them to download our software and compile it.
> >
> > IIRC, they'll accept preprocessed compiler input for the specific file;
> > you don't need to provide a complete source tree. Per
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/
> >
> > Please include all of the following items, the first three of which can
> > be obtained from the output of gcc -v:
> >
> > the exact version of GCC;
> > the system type;
> > the options given when GCC was configured/built;
> > the complete command line that triggers the bug;
> > the compiler output (error messages, warnings, etc.); and
> > the preprocessed file (*.i*) that triggers the bug, generated by adding
> > -save-temps to the complete compilation command, or, in the case of a bug
> > report for the GNAT front end, a complete set of source files (see below).
> >
> > Obviously, if you can trim the input it's good, but it doesn't
> > have to be a minimal reproducer.
>
> Bug submitted, thanks for th preprocessed file tip.
Good news, I was able to prevent the bug by causing compiling of
clauses.c to use -O2 by adding this to src/Makefile.custom:
clauses.o : CFLAGS+=-O2
Here is my submitted bug report:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111240
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Only you can decide what is important to you.
