Re: A few cases of left shifting negative integers

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Piotr Stefaniak <postgres(at)piotr-stefaniak(dot)me>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: A few cases of left shifting negative integers
Date: 2015-08-21 17:23:29
Message-ID: 20150821172329.GE8552@awork2.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2015-08-21 13:03:42 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> The behavior is well-defined, at least as long as we don't shift far
> enough to have integer overflow

Unfortunately not:
5.8.2: The value of E1 << E2 is E1 left-shifted E2 bit positions;
vacated bits are zero-filled. If E1 has an unsigned type, the value of
the result is E1 × 2 E2 , reduced modulo one more than the maximum value
representable in the result type. Otherwise, if E1 has a signed type and
non-negative value, and E1 × 2 E2 is representable in the result type,
then that is the resulting value; >>otherwise, the behavior is undefined<<.

See the >><< highlighted bit...

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2015-08-21 17:27:22 Re: A few cases of left shifting negative integers
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2015-08-21 17:16:23 Re: remove unused ExecGetScanType