On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:24 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >> > Perhaps it should rather be pg_add_s32_overflow, or a similar >> > naming scheme? >> >> Not sure what the s is supposed to be? Signed? > > Yes, signed. So we could add a u32 or something complementing the > functions already in the patch. Even though overflow checks are a heck > of a lot easier to write for unsigned ints, the intrinsics are still > faster. I don't have any sort of strong feelings on the naming.
Right, I guess including the s is probably a good idea then. >> I suggest that if we think we don't need -fwrapv any more, we ought to >> remove it. Otherwise, we won't find out if we're wrong. > > I agree that we should do so at some point not too far away in the > future. Not the least because we don't specify this kind of C dialect in > a lot of other compilers. Additionally the flag causes some slowdown > (because e.g. for loop variables are optimized less). But I'm fairly > certain it needs a bit more care that I've invested as of now - should > probably at least compile with -Wstrict-overflow=some-higher-level, and > with ubsan. I'm fairly certain there's more bogus overflow checks > around... Makes sense. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers