On 22/03/15 13:59, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
On 03/22/2015 11:47 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
On 22/03/15 10:35, Andres Freund wrote:

That's the stuff looking like random memory that I talk about above...

If you look at it closely, it's actually not random memory. At least in
the first 2 failing tests which are not obfuscated by aggregates on top
of aggregates. It looks like first NumericDigit is ok and the second one
is corrupted (there are only 2 NumericDigits in those numbers). Of
course the conversion to Numeric is done from the end so it looks like
only the last computation/pointer change/something stays ok while the
rest got corrupted.

Would this mean the bug is most likely somewhere in
int128_to_numericvar()? Maybe that version of gcc has a bug in some
__int128 operator or I messed up the code there somehow.

Yeah that's what I was thinking also, and I went through the function and didn't find anything suspicious (besides it's same as the 64 bit version except for the int128 use).

It really might be some combination of arithmetic + the conversion to 16bit uint bug in the compiler. Would be worth to try to produce test case and try it standalone maybe?

 Petr Jelinek                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to