Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I was suspicious that it had something to do with the compiler trying to
>> optimize the size / mult and size % mult subexpressions
> Already did (that was my first assumption). Removing them doesn't
> help, nor does rewriting them in various strange ways. Removing val++;
> (and replacing with { } ) allows compilation to succeed.
Huh. Well, it might still be the case that switching to a shift-based
implementation would work around it, since we could avoid having any ++
operation in that. Let me give it a shot.
regards, tom lane
