Revise overflow test in int84() to avoid codegen bug in some older

versions of gcc.  We don't really need to explicitly test the limits
anyway, just reverse-convert and see if we get the same answer.
This commit is contained in:
Tom Lane 2001-09-07 01:33:44 +00:00
parent de77c55515
commit 0fc7779d2e

View File

@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
* Portions Copyright (c) 1994, Regents of the University of California
*
* IDENTIFICATION
* $Header: /cvsroot/pgsql/src/backend/utils/adt/int8.c,v 1.32 2001/08/24 14:07:49 petere Exp $
* $Header: /cvsroot/pgsql/src/backend/utils/adt/int8.c,v 1.33 2001/09/07 01:33:44 tgl Exp $
*
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*/
@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ int8in(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
* Do our own scan, rather than relying on sscanf which might be
* broken for long long.
*/
while (*ptr && isspace((unsigned char) *ptr)) /* skip leading spaces */
while (*ptr && isspace((unsigned char) *ptr)) /* skip leading spaces */
ptr++;
if (*ptr == '-') /* handle sign */
sign = -1, ptr++;
@ -688,11 +688,12 @@ int84(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
int64 val = PG_GETARG_INT64(0);
int32 result;
if ((val < INT_MIN) || (val > INT_MAX))
elog(ERROR, "int8 conversion to int4 is out of range");
result = (int32) val;
/* Test for overflow by reverse-conversion. */
if ((int64) result != val)
elog(ERROR, "int8 conversion to int4 is out of range");
PG_RETURN_INT32(result);
}