Thread

1. int8.c compile problem on UnixWare 7.x

   Billy G. Allie <bill.allie@mug.org> — 2000-03-31T19:39:14Z

   It appears that some code in backend/utils/adt/int8.c tickles a compiler bug 
   in SCO's UDK when it is compiled with optimazation turned on.  The attached 
   patch, which rewrites a for statement as a while statement corrects the 
   problem.
   

2. Re: int8.c compile problem on UnixWare 7.x

   Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> — 2000-04-01T08:10:03Z

   -- Start of PGP signed section.
   > It appears that some code in backend/utils/adt/int8.c tickles a compiler bug 
   > in SCO's UDK when it is compiled with optimazation turned on.  The attached 
   > patch, which rewrites a for statement as a while statement corrects the 
   > problem.
   Content-Description: uw7-20000331.patch
   
   
   I am sorry Billy but the new code is much harder to understand than the
   original, so I am not inclined to change it based on a compiler bug, for
   which SCO is so famous.
   
   If you wish to submit a patch that removes optimization from the
   Makefile for the file or entire directory under SCO, I will consider it.
   And I would document the change so we can remove it later.
   
   -- 
     Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
     pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
     +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
     +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
   
   

3. Re: int8.c compile problem on UnixWare 7.x

   Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2000-04-02T04:49:55Z

   Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
   > I am sorry Billy but the new code is much harder to understand than the
   > original, so I am not inclined to change it based on a compiler bug, for
   > which SCO is so famous.
   
   I agree that I'm not eager to uglify the code that much to avoid a
   single-platform compiler bug.  Can it be worked around with less-ugly
   changes?  I'd try changing the --i to i--, for example; and/or swapping
   the order of the two initialization assignments.  Neither of those would
   impair readability noticeably.
   
   			regards, tom lane