Re: Integer parsing bug? - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

Steve Atkins wrote:
> Section 8.1 of the manual gives the range of an integer
> as -2147483648 to +2147483647.
>
>
> template1=# select '-2147483648'::int;
>     int4
> -------------
>  -2147483648
> (1 row)
>
> template1=# select -2147483648::int;
> ERROR:  integer out of range
>
> Oops.
>
> template1=# select version();
>                            version
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>  PostgreSQL 7.4.1 on i686-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC 2.96
> (1 row)
>
> Completely vanilla build - no options other than --prefix to
> configure. Clean installation, this is immediately after an initdb.
>
> I see the same bug on Solaris, built with Forte C in 64 bit mode.

Yep, it definately looks weird:

    test=> select '-2147483648'::int;
        int4
    -------------
     -2147483648
    (1 row)

    test=> select -2147483648::int;
    ERROR:  integer out of range
    test=> select -2147483647::int;
      ?column?
    -------------
     -2147483647
    (1 row)

    test=> select '-2147483649'::int;
    ERROR:  value "-2147483649" is out of range for type integer

The non-quoting works only for *47, and the quoting works for *48, but
both fail for *49.

I looked at libc's strtol(), and that works fine, as does our existing
parser checks.  The error is coming from int84, a comparison function
called from the executor.  Here is a test program:

    #include <stdio.h>
    #include <stdlib.h>

    int main(int argc, char *argv[])
    {
    long long l = -2147483648;
    int i = l;

        if (i != l)
            printf("not equal\n");
        else
            printf("equal\n");
        return 0;
    }

A compile generates the following warning:

    tst1.c:6: warning: decimal constant is so large that it is unsigned

and reports "not equal".

I see in the freebsd machine/limits.h file:

 * According to ANSI (section 2.2.4.2), the values below must be usable by
 * #if preprocessing directives.  Additionally, the expression must have the
 * same type as would an expression that is an object of the corresponding
 * type converted according to the integral promotions.  The subtraction for
 * INT_MIN, etc., is so the value is not unsigned; e.g., 0x80000000 is an
 * unsigned int for 32-bit two's complement ANSI compilers (section 3.1.3.2).
 * These numbers are for the default configuration of gcc.  They work for
 * some other compilers as well, but this should not be depended on.

 #define INT_MAX         0x7fffffff      /* max value for an int */
 #define INT_MIN         (-0x7fffffff - 1)       /* min value for an int */

Basically, what is happening is that the special value -INT_MAX-1 is
being converted to an int value, and the compiler is casting it to an
unsigned.  Seems this is a known C issue and I can't see a good fix for
it except perhaps check for INT_MIN int he int84 function, but I ran
some tests and that didn't work either.

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073