Re: Numeric x^y for negative x - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Numeric x^y for negative x
Date
Msg-id 2449471.1628218684@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Numeric x^y for negative x  (Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Numeric x^y for negative x  (Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 at 17:04, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> It looks like castoroides is not happy with this patch:
>> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=castoroides&dt=2021-08-01%2008%3A52%3A43

> Hmm, there's something very weird going on there.

Yeah.  I tried to reproduce this on the gcc compile farm's Solaris 10
machine, but the test passed fine for me.  The only obvious configuration
difference I can find is that that machine has

$ cc -V
cc: Sun C 5.10 SunOS_sparc Patch 141861-10 2012/11/07

whereas castorides' compiler seems to be a few years older.  So this
does seem like it could be a compiler bug.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: EXEC_BACKEND vs bgworkers without BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Worth using personality(ADDR_NO_RANDOMIZE) for EXEC_BACKEND on linux?