Re: plpython versus gcc 4.5.x
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: plpython versus gcc 4.5.x |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4D3B3561.4000507@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | plpython versus gcc 4.5.x (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 01/22/2011 01:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Buildfarm members bobcat (Fedora 14 x86) and frogmouth (mingw) have > been showing an assertion failure in the plpython regression tests > since this patch went in: > http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=740e54c > > I have been able to reproduce the problem locally on Fedora 14 x86_64. > The common thread appears to be use of gcc 4.5 --- Andrew says that > frogmouth is using 4.5.0, and current F-14 has gcc 4.5.1. I have found > that manually re-inlining PLy_procedure_input_conversion is sufficient > to make the problem go away, as is reducing the optimization level below > -O2. > > Based on these observations, I believe it's not our bug but an > optimization bug in gcc, and have accordingly filed a gcc bug: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671899 > However, it's hard to guess how long it might take for the gcc boys to > provide a fix, and in any case I fear it will be a long time before the > fix propagates to places like mingw. > > Given these facts, and the fact that the above-mentioned patch has no > purpose other than code beautification, I recommend reverting the patch. > We could just revert the de-inlining of PLy_procedure_input_conversion, > but there doesn't seem to be a lot of point in having one separate and > the other not. > Since there's only one call site for each function, I don't think it's worth making herculean efforts to do anything else. so +1 cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: