8000 Fix overflow handling in plpgsql's integer FOR loops. · divag711/postgres@5917297 · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to content

Commit 5917297

Browse files
tglsfdctglsfdc
committed
Fix overflow handling in plpgsql's integer FOR loops.
The test to exit the loop if the integer control value would overflow an int32 turns out not to work on some ICC versions, as it's dependent on the assumption that the compiler will execute the code as written rather than "optimize" it. ICC lacks any equivalent of gcc's -fwrapv switch, so it was optimizing on the assumption of no integer overflow, and that breaks this. Rewrite i 8000 nto a form that in fact does not do any overflowing computations. Per Tomas Vondra and buildfarm member fulmar. It's been like this for a long time, although it was not till we added a regression test case covering the behavior (in commit dd2243f) that the problem became apparent. Back-patch to all supported versions. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/50562fdc-0876-9843-c883-15b8566c7511@2ndquadrant.com
1 parent 12d18b4 commit 5917297

File tree

1 file changed

+2
-2
lines changed

1 file changed

+2
-2
lines changed

‎src/pl/plpgsql/src/pl_exec.c

Lines changed: 2 additions & 2 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -2068,13 +2068,13 @@ exec_stmt_fori(PLpgSQL_execstate *estate, PLpgSQL_stmt_fori *stmt)
20682068
*/
20692069
if (stmt->reverse)
20702070
{
2071-
if ((int32) (loop_value - step_value) > loop_value)
2071+
if (loop_value < (PG_INT32_MIN + step_value))
20722072
break;
20732073
loop_value -= step_value;
20742074
}
20752075
else
20762076
{
2077-
if ((int32) (loop_value + step_value) < loop_value)
2077+
if (loop_value > (PG_INT32_MAX - step_value))
20782078
break;
20792079
loop_value += step_value;
20802080
}

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)
0