Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Disable -faggressive-loop-optimizations in gcc 4.8+ for pre-9.2
--On 20. Januar 2015 17:15:01 +0100 Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: I personally think that being able to at least compile/make check old versions a bit longer is a good idea. +1 from me for this idea. -- Thanks Bernd -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Disable -faggressive-loop-optimizations in gcc 4.8+ for pre-9.2
Bernd Helmle wrote: --On 20. Januar 2015 17:15:01 +0100 Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: I personally think that being able to at least compile/make check old versions a bit longer is a good idea. +1 from me for this idea. Already done yesterday :-) Thanks, -- Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Disable -faggressive-loop-optimizations in gcc 4.8+ for pre-9.2
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Disable -faggressive-loop-optimizations in gcc 4.8+ for pre-9.2 branches. With this optimization flag enabled, recent versions of gcc can generate incorrect code that assumes variable-length arrays (such as oidvector) are actually fixed-length because they're embedded in some larger struct. The known instance of this problem was fixed in 9.2 and up by commit 8137f2c32322c624e0431fac1621e8e9315202f9 and followon work, which hides actually-variable-length catalog fields from the compiler altogether. And we plan to gradually convert variable-length fields to official flexible array member notation over time, which should prevent this type of bug from reappearing as gcc gets smarter. We're not going to try to back-port those changes into older branches, though, so apply this band-aid instead. Would anybody object to me pushing this commit to branches 8.2 and 8.3? Since those branches are out of support, I am not sure what the point is. If we want people to be able to use those branches reasonably we need to back-port fixes for critical security and stability issues, not just this one thing. But maybe I am missing something. -- 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
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Disable -faggressive-loop-optimizations in gcc 4.8+ for pre-9.2
Robert Haas wrote: Would anybody object to me pushing this commit to branches 8.2 and 8.3? Since those branches are out of support, I am not sure what the point is. If we want people to be able to use those branches reasonably we need to back-port fixes for critical security and stability issues, not just this one thing. But maybe I am missing something. I just want to make it easy to compile those branches with current toolset so that I can study their behavior to suggest workarounds for customer problems etc -- nothing more. I am not proposing to open them up again for support. Of course, I can carry the patched branches locally if there is strong opposition, but since it's harmless, I don't see why would there be any such. Another easy workaround is to add -O0 to CFLAGS, and I can script that easily too. Without this patch or -O0, initdb fails with inicializando pg_authid ... FATAL: wrong number of index expressions SENTENCIA: CREATE TRIGGER pg_sync_pg_database AFTER INSERT OR UPDATE OR DELETE ON pg_database FOR EACH STATEMENT EXECUTE PROCEDURE flatfile_update_trigger(); There is the additional problem that contrib/cube fails to compile, but I don't care enough about that one: /pgsql/source/REL8_3_STABLE/contrib/cube/cubeparse.y:61:17: error: ‘result’ undeclared (first use in this function) *((void **)result) = write_box( dim, $2, $4 ); ^ -- Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Disable -faggressive-loop-optimizations in gcc 4.8+ for pre-9.2
Tom Lane wrote: Disable -faggressive-loop-optimizations in gcc 4.8+ for pre-9.2 branches. With this optimization flag enabled, recent versions of gcc can generate incorrect code that assumes variable-length arrays (such as oidvector) are actually fixed-length because they're embedded in some larger struct. The known instance of this problem was fixed in 9.2 and up by commit 8137f2c32322c624e0431fac1621e8e9315202f9 and followon work, which hides actually-variable-length catalog fields from the compiler altogether. And we plan to gradually convert variable-length fields to official flexible array member notation over time, which should prevent this type of bug from reappearing as gcc gets smarter. We're not going to try to back-port those changes into older branches, though, so apply this band-aid instead. Would anybody object to me pushing this commit to branches 8.2 and 8.3? -- Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Disable -faggressive-loop-optimizations in gcc 4.8+ for pre-9.2
On 2015-01-20 11:10:53 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Disable -faggressive-loop-optimizations in gcc 4.8+ for pre-9.2 branches. With this optimization flag enabled, recent versions of gcc can generate incorrect code that assumes variable-length arrays (such as oidvector) are actually fixed-length because they're embedded in some larger struct. The known instance of this problem was fixed in 9.2 and up by commit 8137f2c32322c624e0431fac1621e8e9315202f9 and followon work, which hides actually-variable-length catalog fields from the compiler altogether. And we plan to gradually convert variable-length fields to official flexible array member notation over time, which should prevent this type of bug from reappearing as gcc gets smarter. We're not going to try to back-port those changes into older branches, though, so apply this band-aid instead. Would anybody object to me pushing this commit to branches 8.2 and 8.3? Since those branches are out of support, I am not sure what the point is. If we want people to be able to use those branches reasonably we need to back-port fixes for critical security and stability issues, not just this one thing. But maybe I am missing something. Supporting and being able to compile and run 'make check' (which doesn't complete = gcc 4.8) aren't the same thing though. And we e.g. try to provide pg_dump and libpq support for older versions, which is hard to ensure if you can't run them. I personally think that being able to at least compile/make check old versions a bit longer is a good idea. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Disable -faggressive-loop-optimizations in gcc 4.8+ for pre-9.2
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: Robert Haas wrote: Would anybody object to me pushing this commit to branches 8.2 and 8.3? Since those branches are out of support, I am not sure what the point is. If we want people to be able to use those branches reasonably we need to back-port fixes for critical security and stability issues, not just this one thing. But maybe I am missing something. I just want to make it easy to compile those branches with current toolset so that I can study their behavior to suggest workarounds for customer problems etc -- nothing more. I am not proposing to open them up again for support. Oh, I see. Well, that doesn't bother me, then. -- 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
