| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Yugo NAGATA <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Numeric x^y for negative x |
| Date: | 2021-08-06 02:58:04 |
| Message-ID: | 2449471.1628218684@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 at 17:04, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> It looks like castoroides is not happy with this patch:
>> https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=castoroides&dt=2021-08-01%2008%3A52%3A43
> Hmm, there's something very weird going on there.
Yeah. I tried to reproduce this on the gcc compile farm's Solaris 10
machine, but the test passed fine for me. The only obvious configuration
difference I can find is that that machine has
$ cc -V
cc: Sun C 5.10 SunOS_sparc Patch 141861-10 2012/11/07
whereas castorides' compiler seems to be a few years older. So this
does seem like it could be a compiler bug.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2021-08-06 03:29:44 | Worth using personality(ADDR_NO_RANDOMIZE) for EXEC_BACKEND on linux? |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2021-08-06 02:56:49 | Re: EXEC_BACKEND vs bgworkers without BGWORKER_SHMEM_ACCESS |