Thread: int8.c compile problem on UnixWare 7.x
It appears that some code in backend/utils/adt/int8.c tickles a compiler bug in SCO's UDK when it is compiled with optimazation turned on. The attached patch, which rewrites a for statement as a while statement corrects the problem. ____ | Billy G. Allie | Domain....: Bill.Allie@mug.org | /| | 7436 Hartwell | Compuserve: 76337,2061 |-/-|----- | Dearborn, MI 48126| MSN.......: B_G_Allie@email.msn.com |/ |LLIE | (313) 582-1540 |
Attachment
-- Start of PGP signed section. > It appears that some code in backend/utils/adt/int8.c tickles a compiler bug > in SCO's UDK when it is compiled with optimazation turned on. The attached > patch, which rewrites a for statement as a while statement corrects the > problem. Content-Description: uw7-20000331.patch I am sorry Billy but the new code is much harder to understand than the original, so I am not inclined to change it based on a compiler bug, for which SCO is so famous. If you wish to submit a patch that removes optimization from the Makefile for the file or entire directory under SCO, I will consider it. And I would document the change so we can remove it later. -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> I am sorry Billy but the new code is much harder to understand than the
> original, so I am not inclined to change it based on a compiler bug, for
> which SCO is so famous.
I agree that I'm not eager to uglify the code that much to avoid a
single-platform compiler bug. Can it be worked around with less-ugly
changes? I'd try changing the --i to i--, for example; and/or swapping
the order of the two initialization assignments. Neither of those would
impair readability noticeably.
regards, tom lane
> > I agree that I'm not eager to uglify the code that much to avoid a
> > single-platform compiler bug. Can it be worked around with less-ugly
> > changes? I'd try changing the --i to i--, for example; and/or swapping
> > the order of the two initialization assignments. Neither of those would
> > impair readability noticeably.
> >
> > regards, tom lane
>
> I found a different patch that will fix the problem. It compiles and the
> resulting binary passes the regression tests.
Here is the patch. I am inclined not to apply it. While I realizes it
fixes the problem on your platform, it is one of those bugs I would
rather pass back to the compiler author than fix it in our code.
Comments from others? Is this a popular compiler, or are you the only
one likely to be using that version with that bug?
The change is i > 0 to 0 < i. Wow, if such a change fixes your compiler
for int8's, I really would not trust it for anything.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** ./src/backend/utils/adt/int8.c.orig Mon Apr 3 13:24:12 2000--- ./src/backend/utils/adt/int8.c Mon Apr 3
13:28:472000****************** 410,416 **** if (*arg1 < 1) *result = 0; else!
for (i = *arg1, *result = 1; i > 0; --i) *result *= i; return result;--- 410,416 ----
if (*arg1 < 1) *result = 0; else! for (i = *arg1, *result = 1; 0 < i; --i)
*result *= i;
-- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026