On Sep 26, 2021, at 19:25, Tom Lane wrote:
> More to the point, you should be checking whether strtol reports overflow.
> Having now seen your code, I'll opine that the failing platforms have
> 32-bit long.
Thanks for the pointer, Tom. I believe this fixes that particular issue.
"David E. Wheeler" writes:
> On Sep 26, 2021, at 18:31, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'd bet more along the lines of "your overflow check is less portable than
>> you thought”.
> Oh well now that you mention it and I look past things, I see we’re using
> INT_MAX, but should probably use INT32_MAX.
More
On Sep 26, 2021, at 18:31, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'd bet more along the lines of "your overflow check is less portable than
> you thought”.
Oh well now that you mention it and I look past things, I see we’re using
INT_MAX, but should probably use INT32_MAX.
On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 05:32:11PM -0400, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> Hell Hackers, long time no email!
>
> I got a bug report for the semver extension:
>
> https://github.com/theory/pg-semver/issues/58
>
> It claims that a test unexpected passes. That is, Test #31 is expected to
> fail,
"David E. Wheeler" writes:
> It claims that a test unexpected passes. That is, Test #31 is expected to
> fail, because it intentionally tests a version in which its parts overflow
> the int32[3] they’re stored in, with the expectation that one day we can
> refactor the type to handle larger
Hell Hackers, long time no email!
I got a bug report for the semver extension:
https://github.com/theory/pg-semver/issues/58
It claims that a test unexpected passes. That is, Test #31 is expected to fail,
because it intentionally tests a version in which its parts overflow the
int32[3]
