Re: Bug: x86_64-w64-mingw32 REL_11_STABLE with features:UpdateStatisticsForTypeChange internal compiler error

It is an up-to-date compiler.

AnonymousUser@ANONYMOUST MINGW64 /w/R-3.5._/postgres/build
$  x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc --version
x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc.exe (Rev1, Built by MSYS2 project) 8.2.0
Copyright (C) 2018 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.  There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

These people here do not think that "a missing return statement" is a good
idea.

Why and how does GCC compile a function with a missing return statement?
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/7280877/why-and-how-does-gcc-compile-a-function-with-a-missing-return-statement

"
The subtraction of 32 was carried out in the %eax register. 
And in the x86 calling convention, that is the register in which 
the return value is expected to be! So... you got lucky.
"

Of
$ view /w/R-3.5._/postgres/src/backend/commands/statscmds.c

Here is the function.

419 void
420 UpdateStatisticsForTypeChange(Oid statsOid, Oid relationOid, int attnum,
421                                                           Oid
oldColumnType, Oid newColumnType)
422 {
423         /*
424          * Currently, we don't actually need to do anything here.  For
both
425          * ndistinct and functional-dependencies stats, the on-disk
representation
426          * is independent of the source column data types, and it is
plausible to
427          * assume that the old statistic values will still be good for
the new
428          * column contents.  (Obviously, if the ALTER COLUMN TYPE has a
USING
429          * expression that substantially alters the semantic meaning of
the column
430          * values, this assumption could fail.  But that seems like a
corner case
431          * that doesn't justify zapping the stats in common cases.)
432          *
433          * Future types of extended stats will likely require us to work
harder.
434          */
435 }  <---------- **  The error is here at line 435 and position 1. ** 






--
Sent from: http://www.postgresql-archive.org/PostgreSQL-bugs-f2117394.html