Re: master make check fails on Solaris 10 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Marina Polyakova |
---|---|
Subject | Re: master make check fails on Solaris 10 |
Date | |
Msg-id | [email protected] Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: master make check fails on Solaris 10 (Tom Lane <[email protected]>) |
Responses |
Re: master make check fails on Solaris 10
Re: master make check fails on Solaris 10 Re: master make check fails on Solaris 10 Re: master make check fails on Solaris 10 |
List | pgsql-hackers |
[I added Victor Wagner as co-researcher of this problem] On 13-01-2018 21:10, Tom Lane wrote: > In the end this might just be an instance of the old saw about > avoiding dot-zero releases. Have you tried a newer gcc? > (Digging in their bugzilla finds quite a number of __int128 bugs > fixed in 5.4.x, though none look to be specifically about > misaligned data.) gcc 5.5.0 (from [1]) did not fix the problem.. On 16-01-2018 2:41, Tom Lane wrote: > Marina Polyakova <[email protected]> writes: >> On 13-01-2018 21:10, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I'm not sure there's much we can do about this. Dropping the use >>> of the alignment spec isn't a workable option. If there were a >>> simple way for configure to detect that the compiler generates bad >>> code for that, we could have it do so and reject use of __int128, >>> but it'd be up to you to come up with a workable test. > >> I'll think about it.. > > Attached is a possible test program. I can confirm it passes on a > machine with working __int128, but I have no idea whether it will > detect the problem on yours. If not, maybe you can tweak it? Thank you! Using gcc 5.5.0 it prints that everything is ok. But, investigating the regression diffs, we found out that the error occurs when we pass int128 as not the first argument to the function (perhaps its value is replaced by the value of some address): -- Use queries from random.sql SELECT count(*) FROM onek; -- Everything is ok ... SELECT random, count(random) FROM RANDOM_TBL GROUP BY random HAVING count(random) > 3; -- Everything is ok postgres=# SELECT * FROM RANDOM_TBL ORDER BY random; -- Print current data random -------- 78 86 98 98 (4 rows) postgres=# SELECT AVG(random) FROM RANDOM_TBL postgres-# HAVING AVG(random) NOT BETWEEN 80 AND 120; -- Oops! avg ------------------------------- 79446934848446476698976780288 (1 row) Debug output from the last query (see attached diff.patch, it is based on commit 9c7d06d60680c7f00d931233873dee81fdb311c6 of master): makeInt128AggState int8_avg_accum val 98 int8_avg_accum val_int128 as 2 x int64: 0 98 int8_avg_accum val_int128 bytes: 00000000000000000000000000000062 int8_avg_accum state 100e648d8 int8_avg_accum 1007f2e94 do_int128_accum int128 newval as 2 x int64: 4306826968 0 do_int128_accum int128 newval bytes: 0000000100B4F6D80000000000000000 do_int128_accum state 100e648d8 do_int128_accum 1007f1e30 int8_avg_accum val 86 int8_avg_accum val_int128 as 2 x int64: 0 86 int8_avg_accum val_int128 bytes: 00000000000000000000000000000056 int8_avg_accum state 100e648d8 int8_avg_accum 1007f2e94 do_int128_accum int128 newval as 2 x int64: 4306826968 0 do_int128_accum int128 newval bytes: 0000000100B4F6D80000000000000000 do_int128_accum state 100e648d8 do_int128_accum 1007f1e30 int8_avg_accum val 98 int8_avg_accum val_int128 as 2 x int64: 0 98 int8_avg_accum val_int128 bytes: 00000000000000000000000000000062 int8_avg_accum state 100e648d8 int8_avg_accum 1007f2e94 do_int128_accum int128 newval as 2 x int64: 4306826968 0 do_int128_accum int128 newval bytes: 0000000100B4F6D80000000000000000 do_int128_accum state 100e648d8 do_int128_accum 1007f1e30 int8_avg_accum val 78 int8_avg_accum val_int128 as 2 x int64: 0 78 int8_avg_accum val_int128 bytes: 0000000000000000000000000000004E int8_avg_accum state 100e648d8 int8_avg_accum 1007f2e94 do_int128_accum int128 newval as 2 x int64: 4306826968 0 do_int128_accum int128 newval bytes: 0000000100B4F6D80000000000000000 do_int128_accum state 100e648d8 do_int128_accum 1007f1e30 numeric_poly_avg int128_to_numericvar int128_to_numericvar int128 val as 2 x int64: 17227307872 0 int128_to_numericvar int128 val bytes: 0000000402D3DB600000000000000000 (val_int128 in the function int8_avg_accum is correct, but newval in the function do_int128_accum is not equal to it. val in the function int128_to_numericvar is (4 * 4306826968).) Based on this, we modified the test program (see attached). Here is its output on Solaris 10 for different alignments requirements for int128 (on my machine where make check-world passes everything is OK) (ALIGNOF_PG_INT128_TYPE is 16 on Solaris 10): $ gcc -D PG_ALIGN_128=16 -m64 -o int128test2 int128test2.c $ ./int128test2 basic aritmetic OK pass int 16 OK pass uint 16 OK pass int 32 OK pass int 64 OK pass int 128 OK $ gcc -D PG_ALIGN_128=8 -m64 -o int128test2 int128test2.c $ ./int128test2 basic aritmetic OK pass int 16 FAILED pass uint 16 FAILED pass int 32 FAILED pass int 64 FAILED pass int 128 OK Maybe some pass test from int128test2.c can be used to test __int128? P.S. I suppose, g.b should be 97656250 to get 400000000005: > struct glob128 > { > __int128 start; > char pad; > int128a a; > int128a b; > int128a c; > int128a d; > } g = {0, 'p', 48828125, 97656255, 0, 0}; > ... > g.b = (g.b << 12) + 5; /* 400000000005 */ [1] https://www.opencsw.org -- Marina Polyakova Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company
Attachment
pgsql-hackers by date: