On 2015-03-22 22:00:13 +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote: > On 22/03/15 13:59, Andreas Karlsson wrote: > >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.
Yes, or a compiler bug. I looked through the code again and found and fixed one minor bug, but that doesnt' explain the problem. > 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? A compiler bug looks like a not unreasonable bet at this point. I've asked Andrew to recompile without optimizations... We'll see whether that makes a difference. Jacana is the only compiler with gcc 4.8.1 (or is it 4.8.0? there's conflicting output). There've been a number of bugs fixed that affect loop unrolling and such. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund 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: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
