Horiguchi-san,
On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 3:41 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
<horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote:
> I found a trick seems workable generically (*1). (2.0 *
> (PG_INT64_MAX/2 + 1)) will generate the value next to the
> PG_INT64_MAX based on some assumptions
> (*1). IS_DOUBLE_SAFE_IN_INT64() below would be able to check if
> the value can be converted into int64 safely or not.
Thanks for sharing a nice way of checking overflow. I tested your
IS_DOUBLE_SAFE_IN_INT64() macro in my environment by the simple code
(attached to this email) and confirmed that it appropriately handled
the overflow. However, further consideration is needed for different
architectures.
I attached the modified patch. In the patch, I placed the macro in
"src/include/c.h", but this may not be a good choice because c.h is
widely included from a lot of files. Do you have any good ideas about
its placement?
Thanks,
Yuya Watari
NTT Software Innovation Center
watari.yuya@gmail.com
