Re: Overflow hazard in pgbench - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Overflow hazard in pgbench
Date
Msg-id 82028.1624825306@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Overflow hazard in pgbench  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Overflow hazard in pgbench
List pgsql-hackers
I wrote:
> ... according to the C99
> spec this code is broken, because the compiler is allowed to assume
> that signed integer overflow doesn't happen, whereupon the second
> if-block is provably unreachable.  The failure still represents a gcc
> bug, because we're using -fwrapv which should disable that assumption.
> However, not all compilers have that switch, so it'd be better to code
> this in a spec-compliant way.

BTW, for grins I tried building today's HEAD without -fwrapv, using
    gcc version 11.1.1 20210531 (Red Hat 11.1.1-3) (GCC) 
which is the newest version I have at hand.  Not very surprisingly,
that reproduced the failure shown on moonjelly.  However, after adding
the patch I proposed, "make check-world" passed!  I was not expecting
that result; I supposed we still had lots of lurking assumptions of
traditional C overflow handling.

I'm not in any hurry to remove -fwrapv, because (a) this result doesn't
show that we have no such assumptions, only that they must be lurking
in darker, poorly-tested corners, and (b) I'm not aware of any reason
to think that removing -fwrapv would provide benefits worth taking any
risks for.  But we may be closer to being able to do without that
switch than I thought.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: PQconnectdb/PQerrorMessage changed behavior on master
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: What is "wraparound failure", really?