Thread: Question about ECPGset_noind_null() and ECPGis_noind_null()
Hi, my question is that what platform were these functions developed and tested? We have come across a value that fails a NOT NULL constraint upon INSERT under HP-UX/IA64, but not under x86-64 Linux. The value in question is 1.9999999999999998 assigned to a "double" variable. Under HP-UX/IA64, testing with risnull() from the application indeed returns true, but under Linux/x86-64 returns false. I will test rsetnull() results on real Informix under HP-UX/IA64. Best regards, Zoltán Böszörményi -- Bible has answers for everything. Proof: "But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." (Matthew 5:37) - basics of digital technology. "May your kingdom come" - superficial description of plate tectonics ---------------------------------- Zoltán Böszörményi Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH http://www.postgresql.at/
Boszormenyi Zoltan írta:
> Hi,
>
> my question is that what platform were these
> functions developed and tested?
>
> We have come across a value that fails a NOT NULL
> constraint upon INSERT under HP-UX/IA64, but not
> under x86-64 Linux. The value in question is
> 1.9999999999999998 assigned to a "double" variable.
> Under HP-UX/IA64, testing with risnull() from
> the application indeed returns true, but under
> Linux/x86-64 returns false.
>
> I will test rsetnull() results on real Informix under
> HP-UX/IA64.
>
I have tested it under ESQL/C on HP-UX/ia64 and
this happened:
- rsetnull() on a double value creates
FF FF FF FF FF FF FF FF
- the value causing the error above is
3F FF FF FF FF FF FF FF
It seems that this function in ecpglib/misc.c has
an off-by-one bug as it's interpreted by the HP-UX CC:
static bool
_check(unsigned char *ptr, int length)
{
for (; length > 0 && ptr[--length] == 0xff;);
if (length <= 0)
return true;
return false;
}
I suspect that GCC does the "--length" after checking
"length > 0" and before checking the "ptr[...] == 0xff",
but HP CC does it before checking "length > 0".
The attached patch solves the problem.
Best regards,
Zoltán Böszörményi
--
Bible has answers for everything. Proof:
"But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more
than these cometh of evil." (Matthew 5:37) - basics of digital technology.
"May your kingdom come" - superficial description of plate tectonics
----------------------------------
Zoltán Böszörményi
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
http://www.postgresql.at/
Attachment
Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at> writes:
> for (; length > 0 && ptr[--length] == 0xff;);
> I suspect that GCC does the "--length" after checking
> "length > 0" and before checking the "ptr[...] == 0xff",
> but HP CC does it before checking "length > 0".
If it does, that is *unquestionably* a bug in HP's CC and should be
reported to them. However, the code is sufficiently unreadable to
be worth rewriting anyhow. Your suggestion is an improvement but
personally I'd plump for
int i;
for (i = 0; i < length; i++) if (ptr[i] != 0xff) return false;return true;
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at> writes: > >> for (; length > 0 && ptr[--length] == 0xff;); >> > > >> I suspect that GCC does the "--length" after checking >> "length > 0" and before checking the "ptr[...] == 0xff", >> but HP CC does it before checking "length > 0". >> > > If it does, that is *unquestionably* a bug in HP's CC and should be > reported to them. > Wow, I recall fighting HP over a bad compiler bug (although not as bad as this would be) 15 years ago. Their official response amounted to "we don't care and we're not going to fix it". Maybe not much has changed. cheers andrew
Tom Lane írta: > Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at> writes: > >> for (; length > 0 && ptr[--length] == 0xff;); >> > > >> I suspect that GCC does the "--length" after checking >> "length > 0" and before checking the "ptr[...] == 0xff", >> but HP CC does it before checking "length > 0". >> > > If it does, that is *unquestionably* a bug in HP's CC and should be > reported to them. Is it *really* a bug? I recalled a comment from my C teacher in '92 or '93 about this exact issue, that the prefix/postfix increment/decrement operators are executed in the statement in an implementation-defined order, i.e. they can be freely reordered or placed anywhere in the expression, provided that the postfix operator's evaluation is earlier than the usage of the variable it's used on and evaluation is later than the variable usage in the postfix case. This means that their usage has to be minimized so the result is unambiguous. I.e. in the common usage: str1[pos1++] = str2[pos2++]; these execution orders are possible and all give the same result: 1. evaluate str2[pos2] increment pos2 assign the above value to str1[pos1] increment pos1 or 2. evaluate str2[pos2] assign the above value to str1[pos1] increment pos2 increment pos1 or 3. evaluate str2[pos2] assign the above value to str1[pos1] increment pos1 increment pos2 In the case of for (; length > 0 && ptr[--length] == 0xff;); the different evaluation orders may give different expression results. But 17 years is a long time, the C language specification has changed a lot. GCC definitely does the most sensible order but I didn't know this behaviour is specified in the C language. > However, the code is sufficiently unreadable to > be worth rewriting anyhow. Your suggestion is an improvement but > personally I'd plump for > > int i; > > for (i = 0; i < length; i++) > if (ptr[i] != 0xff) > return false; > return true; > Yes, it's better than my version. Best regards, Zoltán Böszörményi > regards, tom lane > > -- Bible has answers for everything. Proof: "But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." (Matthew 5:37) - basics of digital technology. "May your kingdom come" - superficial description of plate tectonics ---------------------------------- Zoltán Böszörményi Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH http://www.postgresql.at/
Boszormenyi Zoltan írta: > Tom Lane írta: > >> Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at> writes: >> >> >>> for (; length > 0 && ptr[--length] == 0xff;); >>> >>> >> >> >>> I suspect that GCC does the "--length" after checking >>> "length > 0" and before checking the "ptr[...] == 0xff", >>> but HP CC does it before checking "length > 0". >>> >>> >> If it does, that is *unquestionably* a bug in HP's CC and should be >> reported to them. >> > > Is it *really* a bug? I recalled a comment from my C teacher > in '92 or '93 about this exact issue, that the prefix/postfix > increment/decrement operators are executed in the > statement in an implementation-defined order, i.e. they > can be freely reordered or placed anywhere in the > expression, provided that the postfix operator's evaluation > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Above is the prefix case obviously... > is earlier than the usage of the variable it's used on and > evaluation is later than the variable usage in the postfix case. > This means that their usage has to be minimized so the > result is unambiguous. -- Bible has answers for everything. Proof: "But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." (Matthew 5:37) - basics of digital technology. "May your kingdom come" - superficial description of plate tectonics ---------------------------------- Zoltán Böszörményi Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH http://www.postgresql.at/
Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote: > > Is it *really* a bug? I recalled a comment from my C teacher > in '92 or '93 about this exact issue, that the prefix/postfix > increment/decrement operators are executed in the > statement in an implementation-defined order, > Not if they come after a short-circuit operator such as && - after all, that's what short-circuit evaluation implies. If the left hand operand of && is false the right hand should not be evaluated at all. cheers andrew
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
>> Is it *really* a bug? I recalled a comment from my C teacher
>> in '92 or '93 about this exact issue, that the prefix/postfix
>> increment/decrement operators are executed in the
>> statement in an implementation-defined order,
> Not if they come after a short-circuit operator such as && - after all,
> that's what short-circuit evaluation implies. If the left hand operand
> of && is false the right hand should not be evaluated at all.
Yes. && is a sequence point and the compiler is not allowed to move
side-effects across a sequence point. What your C teacher was warning
you against was things likea[i] = i++;
'=' is not a sequence point so it's undefined which array index
will be stored into.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane írta: > Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: > >> Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote: >> >>> Is it *really* a bug? I recalled a comment from my C teacher >>> in '92 or '93 about this exact issue, that the prefix/postfix >>> increment/decrement operators are executed in the >>> statement in an implementation-defined order, >>> > > >> Not if they come after a short-circuit operator such as && - after all, >> that's what short-circuit evaluation implies. If the left hand operand >> of && is false the right hand should not be evaluated at all. >> > > Yes. && is a sequence point and the compiler is not allowed to move > side-effects across a sequence point. What your C teacher was warning > you against was things like > a[i] = i++; > '=' is not a sequence point so it's undefined which array index > will be stored into. > > regards, tom lane > Thanks to both of you, this was really informative. Actually my C teacher didn't mention such optimization barriers. It seems I need to look up the raw C language specs... Best regards, Zoltán Böszörményi -- Bible has answers for everything. Proof: "But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." (Matthew 5:37) - basics of digital technology. "May your kingdom come" - superficial description of plate tectonics ---------------------------------- Zoltán Böszörményi Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH http://www.postgresql.at/