Xi Wang xi.w...@gmail.com writes:
On 11/18/12 6:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I was against this style of coding before, and I still am.
For one thing, it's just about certain to introduce conflicts
against system headers.
I totally agree.
I would be happy to rewrite the integer overflow checks
On 11/19/12 11:04 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
I thought about this some more and realized that we can handle it
by realizing that division by -1 is the same as negation, and so
we can copy the method used in int4um. So the code would look like
if (arg2 == -1)
{
result =
Xi Wang xi.w...@gmail.com writes:
The reality is that C compilers are not friendly to postcondition
checking; they consider signed integer overflow as undefined behavior,
so they do whatever they want to do. Even workaround options like
-fwrapv are often broken, not to mention that they may
On 2012-11-19 11:04:31 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Xi Wang xi.w...@gmail.com writes:
Since INTn_MIN and INTn_MAX are standard macros from the C library,
can we assume that every C compiler should provide them in stdint.h?
Not every C compiler provides stdint.h, unfortunately --- otherwise
I'd
The INT_MIN / -1 crash problem was partially addressed in 2006 and
commit 9fc6f4e1ae107f44807c4906105e1f7eb052ecb1.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2006-06/msg00102.php
However, the fix is incomplete and incorrect for some cases.
64-bit crash
Below is an example that
Xi Wang xi.w...@gmail.com writes:
[ patch adding a bunch of explicit INT_MIN/MAX constants ]
I was against this style of coding before, and I still am.
For one thing, it's just about certain to introduce conflicts
against system headers.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via
On 11/18/12 6:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Xi Wang xi.w...@gmail.com writes:
[ patch adding a bunch of explicit INT_MIN/MAX constants ]
I was against this style of coding before, and I still am.
For one thing, it's just about certain to introduce conflicts
against system headers.
I totally
