Hi, On 2015-08-14 15:35:45 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > >But we've played that whack-a-mole game in a bunch of configure tests > >now, and it seems likely that more are coming with compilers getting > >better. I'd not be surprised if some tests actually always succeed, we > >just don't notice it because it's only on new compilers that have the > >tested feature anyway... > > Yeah, wouldn't be surprised if the other similar tests for all __sync_* > family of functions had the same problem.
I don't think those are vulnerable because atomics do have a side effect - they're memory barriers. Maybe if we'd specified relaxed (we don't) consistency mode for the __atomic_* ones. > >One way trying to fix this would be to explicitly disable optimizations > >during tests. I'm not sure that's a good idea, but it's one. > > I think adding the "return" is better. Ok, will do. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
