| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Joseph Koshakow <koshy44(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Matthew Kim <matthewkmkim(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: Remove dependence on integer wrapping |
| Date: | 2024-08-15 18:45:48 |
| Message-ID: | Zr5M3KxOZlEZRZIN@nathan |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 02:56:00PM +0800, jian he wrote:
> i am confused with
> "
> +#elif defined(HAVE_INT128)
> + uint128 res = -((int128) a);
> "
> I thought "unsigned" means non-negative, therefore uint128 means non-negative.
> therefore "int128 res = -((int128) a);" makes sense to me.
Ah, that's a typo, thanks for pointing it out.
> also in HAVE_INT128 branch
> do we need cast int128 to int64, like
>
> *result = (int64) res;
I don't think we need an explicit cast here since *result is known to be an
int64. But it certainly wouldn't hurt anything...
--
nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2024-08-15 18:48:42 | Re: Partial aggregates pushdown |
| Previous Message | Rafia Sabih | 2024-08-15 17:52:55 | Re: Reducing the log spam |