| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, Victor Wagner <vitus(at)wagner(dot)pp(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Bug fix for glibc broke freebsd build in REL_11_STABLE |
| Date: | 2018-09-05 16:58:37 |
| Message-ID: | 20180905165837.6zx3o2vazta4pfvr@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-09-05 18:55:34 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 05/09/2018 18:42, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Realistically we're going to be running into old versions of clang for a
> > long time. And the importance of running i386 without SSE2 surely isn't
> > increasing. So I don't really see an urgent need to do anything about
> > it. And if it gets fixed, and we care, we can just add a clang version
> > check to the test.
>
> Another option perhaps is to let this be and accept it as alternative
> floating point behavior. We already have some of those.
-many. We'd directly violate our own error rules. I'm actually
personally in favor of not throwing error when float overflows - it's
imo not actually useful and costs performance - but sometimes throwing
an error depending on the specific register allocator behaviour of a
specific version of a compiler is bad. It's really weird to return
[+-]Infinity depending on just *how much* you overflowed.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-09-05 17:06:36 | Re: Bug fix for glibc broke freebsd build in REL_11_STABLE |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-09-05 16:55:34 | Re: Bug fix for glibc broke freebsd build in REL_11_STABLE |