On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 05:11:02PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > On 10/01/2018 11:58 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Oooh ... apparently, on that platform, memcmp() is willing to produce
> >> INT_MIN in some cases. That's not a safe value for a sort comparator
> >> to produce --- we explicitly say that somewhere, IIRC. I think we
> >> implement DESC by negating the comparator's result, which explains
> >> why only the DESC case fails.
>
> > Is there a standard that forbids this, or have we just been lucky up to now?
>
> We've been lucky; POSIX just says the value is less than, equal to,
> or greater than zero.
>
> In practice, a memcmp that operates byte-at-a-time would not likely
> return anything outside +-255. But on a big-endian machine you could
> easily optimize to use word-wide operations to compare 4 bytes at a
> time, and I suspect that's what's happening here. Or maybe there's
> just some weird architecture-specific reason that makes it cheap
> for them to return INT_MIN rather than some other value?
>
as a former S3[79]x assembler programmer, they probably do it in
registers or using TRT. All of which could be word wise.
> regards, tom lane
>
--
Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 214-642-9640 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org
US Mail: 5708 Sabbia Drive, Round Rock, TX 78665-2106
