Re: [HACKERS] ECPG failure on BF member Vaquita (Windows Vista)

2007-04-27 Thread Michael Meskes
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 01:35:42PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: AFAICS you do not need to inline create_statement. The risk factor is where you call a routine that does something with a va_list, and then you want to do something else (other than va_end) with that va_list after it returns. The one

Re: [HACKERS] ECPG failure on BF member Vaquita (Windows Vista)

2007-04-27 Thread Michael Meskes
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 10:29:47AM -0700, Mark Wong wrote: I applied it to REL8_2_STABLE/pgsql and ran 'run_build.pl --test --keepall REL8_2_STABLE'. Looks like it passed everything for me. :) Thanks for this test. I just committed the changes to CVS. Michael -- Michael Meskes Email: Michael

Re: [HACKERS] ECPG failure on BF member Vaquita (Windows Vista)

2007-04-26 Thread Michael Meskes
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 03:17:19PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Why in the world is that like that? We don't have such a kluge anyplace else we use va_list. stringinfo.c for instance has never needed any such thing. I don't remember the exact details but this was added a long time ago before 8.0

Re: [HACKERS] ECPG failure on BF member Vaquita (Windows Vista)

2007-04-26 Thread Michael Meskes
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 04:38:30PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: My recommendation is to get rid of the APREF hack, deal only in va_list not va_list, and inline ECPGget_variable into the two places it's used to avoid the question of passing va_lists around after they've been modified. The routine's

Re: [HACKERS] ECPG failure on BF member Vaquita (Windows Vista)

2007-04-26 Thread Michael Meskes
ARGH! This time with patch. Michael -- Michael Meskes Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL! diff -ruN --exclude CVS

Re: [HACKERS] ECPG failure on BF member Vaquita (Windows Vista)

2007-04-26 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Michael Meskes wrote: Attached you'll find a patch that should inline both functions and remove the APREF stuff. This successfully runs the regression suite on my Linux box. Please test it on those archs that needed special treatment before I commit. If you commit to HEAD it will be

Re: [HACKERS] ECPG failure on BF member Vaquita (Windows Vista)

2007-04-26 Thread Michael Meskes
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 06:28:29AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: If you commit to HEAD it will be automatically tested on the buildfarm. True. But it might also break a lot of other archs without helping on those troubled ones. I thought this way would be better. Michael -- Michael Meskes

Re: [HACKERS] ECPG failure on BF member Vaquita (Windows Vista)

2007-04-26 Thread Mark Wong
On 4/26/07, Michael Meskes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 04:38:30PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: My recommendation is to get rid of the APREF hack, deal only in va_list not va_list, and inline ECPGget_variable into the two places it's used to avoid the question of passing

Re: [HACKERS] ECPG failure on BF member Vaquita (Windows Vista)

2007-04-26 Thread Tom Lane
Michael Meskes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Having spend countless hours debugging this stuff I fully agree with you. It's not just ECPGget_variable though. I also had to inline create_statement. AFAICS you do not need to inline create_statement. The risk factor is where you call a routine that

Re: [HACKERS] ECPG failure on BF member Vaquita (Windows Vista)

2007-04-25 Thread Michael Meskes
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 10:47:57AM +0100, Dave Page wrote: I'm seeing an ECPG-Check failure on Windows Vista - any ideas what might be causing this? Hmm, first glance suggests some permission problems. I never touched a Vista system so far, so I'm at a loss as far as details are concerned. I

Re: [HACKERS] ECPG failure on BF member Vaquita (Windows Vista)

2007-04-25 Thread Dave Page
Michael Meskes wrote: On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 10:47:57AM +0100, Dave Page wrote: I'm seeing an ECPG-Check failure on Windows Vista - any ideas what might be causing this? Hmm, first glance suggests some permission problems. Yes, that was my thought as well, however I ran cacls down the

Re: [HACKERS] ECPG failure on BF member Vaquita (Windows Vista)

2007-04-25 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Dave Page wrote: Michael Meskes wrote: On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 10:47:57AM +0100, Dave Page wrote: I'm seeing an ECPG-Check failure on Windows Vista - any ideas what might be causing this? Hmm, first glance suggests some permission problems. Yes, that was my thought as

Re: [HACKERS] ECPG failure on BF member Vaquita (Windows Vista)

2007-04-25 Thread Dave Page
Andrew Dunstan wrote: Please don't do that on your buildfarm repo copy (if that's what you did). You should not touch *anything* inside it. If need to you do this, make a copy (see later) and alter that. If you did do this to the buildfarm repo copy, please blow it away so that buildfarm

Re: [HACKERS] ECPG failure on BF member Vaquita (Windows Vista)

2007-04-25 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Dave Page wrote: Andrew Dunstan wrote: Please don't do that on your buildfarm repo copy (if that's what you did). You should not touch *anything* inside it. If need to you do this, make a copy (see later) and alter that. If you did do this to the buildfarm repo copy, please blow it away so

Re: [HACKERS] ECPG failure on BF member Vaquita (Windows Vista)

2007-04-25 Thread Mark Wong
On 4/25/07, Michael Meskes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also saw that wombat is segfaulting in ecpg tests but not only with CVS HEAD but also trying to test 8.2. Any idea what's going on with this machine? I generated a stack trace for REL8_2_STABLE, but I'm not sure how helpful it is. Let me

Re: [HACKERS] ECPG failure on BF member Vaquita (Windows Vista)

2007-04-25 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Mark Wong wrote: On 4/25/07, Michael Meskes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also saw that wombat is segfaulting in ecpg tests but not only with CVS HEAD but also trying to test 8.2. Any idea what's going on with this machine? I generated a stack trace for REL8_2_STABLE, but I'm not sure how

Re: [HACKERS] ECPG failure on BF member Vaquita (Windows Vista)

2007-04-25 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think you'll need to compile with optimisation turned off and then try running the test under debugger control, putting a breakpoint in ECPGget_variable() and then stepping through it. I wonder what value of var-ind_pointer it is getting? You

Re: [HACKERS] ECPG failure on BF member Vaquita (Windows Vista)

2007-04-25 Thread Mark Wong
On 4/25/07, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think you'll need to compile with optimisation turned off and then try running the test under debugger control, putting a breakpoint in ECPGget_variable() and then stepping through it. I wonder what value

Re: [HACKERS] ECPG failure on BF member Vaquita (Windows Vista)

2007-04-25 Thread Tom Lane
Mark Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Does this help? (gdb) p var-ind_pointer $8 = (void *) 0x0 Well, that seems to be the reason why it's failing to indirect through ind_pointer ... but why is it only failing on your machine and not everyone else's? I think this indicates something unportable

Re: [HACKERS] ECPG failure on BF member Vaquita (Windows Vista)

2007-04-25 Thread Mark Wong
On 4/25/07, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Does this help? (gdb) p var-ind_pointer $8 = (void *) 0x0 Well, that seems to be the reason why it's failing to indirect through ind_pointer ... but why is it only failing on your machine and not everyone

Re: [HACKERS] ECPG failure on BF member Vaquita (Windows Vista)

2007-04-25 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: Hmm, and I don't have to look far to find a smoking gun: #if defined(__GNUC__) (defined (__powerpc__) || defined(__amd64__) || defined(__x86_64__)) if (create_statement(lineno, compat, force_indicator, con, stmt, query, args) == false) #else if

Re: [HACKERS] ECPG failure on BF member Vaquita (Windows Vista)

2007-04-25 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But I also see that my amd64/FC6 machine does pass these tests with gcc. Yeah, but the typedef represented by va_list can and probably does vary between amd64 and ppc64. I haven't an easy way to check, but I wonder whether it's not an array type on ppc.