From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Vincent Lachenal <vincent(dot)lachenal(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [BUGS] BUG #14897: Segfault on statitics SQL request |
Date: | 2017-11-14 05:20:25 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQ7+rnOsGNDrtVC9uxb6erog2s4faM0FvmY_s-7uUmaNw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I wrote:
>> So what I am now thinking is that the only practical answer is to stop
>> gcc from believing that it is safe to use 16-aligned instructions on
>> int128's. (Some reading on the net suggests that the actual performance
>> penalty for that is minimal anyway on modern Intel chips.)
>
> Concretely, the attached patch fixes it for me. I've verified by
> examining the assembly code that this stops gcc from using movdqa or
> movaps in numeric.c, except for one place where it apparently can
> prove that it's dealing with a sufficiently-aligned local variable.
I am not seeing any difference in the assembly code generated by gcc
-S with and without your patch. Perhaps I am missing something? What
are you actually seeing?
> As I said before, I don't like moving the int128 typedefs into a section
> where they don't belong, but that's just cosmetic --- this is good enough
> for testing.numeric.s.HEAD
Section 3 could be moved after the section 4 listing the alignment
macros. It seems that it won't hurt to back-patch the refactoring as
well.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-11-14 05:31:35 | Re: [BUGS] BUG #14897: Segfault on statitics SQL request |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-11-14 03:31:23 | Re: [BUGS] BUG #14897: Segfault on statitics SQL request |