Re: GIST code doesn't build on strict 64-bit machines

Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> writes:
> But all of this is strage for me, because we already faced to problem with
> 8-bytes strict aliasing in GiST code, and we had resolved problem on Sun and
> Alpha boxes. What was it changed?

It looks to me like the HP compiler is expecting that the constant
offset part of a doubleword load or store instruction should be a
multiple of 8. The offset-the-evec hack you're using falls foul of
that even though the ultimate runtime address would be legal. I'm
not sure whether this is a constraint of the actual HPPA instruction
format, or just overly anal compile-time testing. gcc doesn't seem
to have a problem, but it's quite possibly not generating the most
efficient instruction sequence, either.

>> I suppose that a correct fix involves doing MAXALIGN(VARDATA(evec)),
>> but I do not know what places need to change to support this.

> Its only union and picksplit user-defined methods in contrib modules.

If I recall correctly, we decided to go with the present hack because we
found the problem just before a release date and there wasn't time to do
it more cleanly. It seems to me that there is time to fix it right for
7.5 ...

regards, tom lane