Missing SIZE_MAX

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

Commit 2e70d6b5e added a dependency on SIZE_MAX to libpq/fe_exec.c.
According to C99 and recent POSIX, that symbol should be provided
by <stdint.h>, but SUS v2 (POSIX 2001) doesn't require <stdint.h>
to exist at all ... and I now notice that gaur/pademelon doesn't
have it, and unsurprisingly is failing to compile fe_exec.c.

We have a workaround for that symbol in timezone/private.h:

#ifndef SIZE_MAX
#define SIZE_MAX ((size_t) -1)
#endif

and a bit of grepping finds other places that are using the (size_t) -1
trick explicitly. So what I'm tempted to do is move the above stanza
into c.h. Any objections?

Not from me.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:

We have a workaround for that symbol in timezone/private.h:

#ifndef SIZE_MAX
#define SIZE_MAX ((size_t) -1)
#endif

and a bit of grepping finds other places that are using the (size_t) -1
trick explicitly. So what I'm tempted to do is move the above stanza
into c.h.

Sounds good to me.

--
�lvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

[ warning: more than you really wanted to know ahead ]

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:

Tom Lane wrote:

We have a workaround for that symbol in timezone/private.h:
#ifndef SIZE_MAX
#define SIZE_MAX ((size_t) -1)
#endif
and a bit of grepping finds other places that are using the (size_t) -1
trick explicitly. So what I'm tempted to do is move the above stanza
into c.h.

Sounds good to me.

On closer inspection, C99 requires SIZE_MAX and related macros to be a
"constant expression suitable for use in #if preprocessing directives",
which we need for the fe-exec.c usage because it does

#if INT_MAX >= (SIZE_MAX / 2)
if (newSize > SIZE_MAX / sizeof(PGresAttValue *))

(We could maybe dispense with this #if check, but I feared that doing
so would result in nanny-ish "expression is constant false" warnings
from some compilers on 64-bit platforms.)

Now, that cast doesn't really work in an #if expression. Some language
lawyering leads me to conclude that in #if, a C compiler will interpret
the above value of SIZE_MAX as "((0) -1)", or just signed -1. So
fe-exec.c's test will surely evaluate to true, which seems like a safe
outcome. But you could certainly imagine other cases where you get
incorrect results if SIZE_MAX looks like a signed -1 to an #if-test.

When I look into /usr/include/stdint.h on my Linux box, I find

# if __WORDSIZE == 64
# define SIZE_MAX (18446744073709551615UL)
# else
# define SIZE_MAX (4294967295U)
# endif

so I thought about trying to duplicate that logic. We can certainly test
SIZEOF_SIZE_T == 8 as a substitute for the #if condition. The hard part
is arriving at a portable spelling of "UL", since it would need to be
"ULL" instead on some platforms. We can't make use of our UINT64CONST
macro because that includes a cast. So it seems like if we want to be
100% correct it would need to be something like

#ifndef SIZE_MAX
#if SIZEOF_SIZE_T == 8
#if SIZEOF_LONG == 8
#define SIZE_MAX (18446744073709551615UL)
#else /* assume unsigned long long is what we need */
#define SIZE_MAX (18446744073709551615ULL)
#endif
#else /* 32-bit */
#define SIZE_MAX (4294967295U)
#endif
#endif

That's mighty ugly. Is it worth the trouble, rather than trusting
that the "(size_t) -1" trick will work? Given that we have so few
needs for SIZE_MAX, I'm kind of inclined just to stick with the cast.

I notice BTW that PG_INT64_MIN, PG_INT64_MAX, and PG_UINT64_MAX
all contain casts and thus are equally risky to test in #if-tests.
I see no at-risk code in our tree right now, but someday we might
need to make those look something like the above, too.

regards, tom lane

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

[ warning: more than you really wanted to know ahead ]

It might be worth the effort to clean all of this up, just because the
next person who gets bitten by it may not be as smart as you are.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:

On Fri, Sep 1, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

[ warning: more than you really wanted to know ahead ]

It might be worth the effort to clean all of this up, just because the
next person who gets bitten by it may not be as smart as you are.

Yeah. I was just thinking that maybe the appropriate investment of
effort is to make [U]INT64CONST smarter, so that it results in a
properly-suffixed constant and doesn't need a cast. Then it'd be a
lot easier to make these other macros be #if-safe.

Or we could just recast the test in fe-exec.c to not use SIZE_MAX.
Checking whether "SIZEOF_SIZE_T == 4" would really have the same
effect, though it's uglier.

regards, tom lane

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

I wrote:

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:

It might be worth the effort to clean all of this up, just because the
next person who gets bitten by it may not be as smart as you are.

Yeah. I was just thinking that maybe the appropriate investment of
effort is to make [U]INT64CONST smarter, so that it results in a
properly-suffixed constant and doesn't need a cast. Then it'd be a
lot easier to make these other macros be #if-safe.

Actually, that looks easier than I thought. The current approach to
[U]INT64CONST dates to before we were willing to require the compiler
to have working 64-bit support. I think that now we can just assume
that either an L/UL or LL/ULL suffix will work, as in the attached
draft. (This'd allow dropping configure's HAVE_LL_CONSTANTS probe
entirely, but I didn't do that yet.)

regards, tom lane