Skip to content

Commit 092401b

Browse files
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 into 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 0a0721f commit 092401b

File tree

1 file changed

+5
-2
lines changed

1 file changed

+5
-2
lines changed

src/pl/plpgsql/src/pl_exec.c

Lines changed: 5 additions & 2 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -38,6 +38,9 @@
3838
#include "utils/snapmgr.h"
3939
#include "utils/typcache.h"
4040

41+
#define PG_INT32_MIN (-0x7FFFFFFF-1)
42+
#define PG_INT32_MAX (0x7FFFFFFF)
43+
4144

4245
static const char *const raise_skip_msg = "RAISE";
4346

@@ -2030,13 +2033,13 @@ exec_stmt_fori(PLpgSQL_execstate *estate, PLpgSQL_stmt_fori *stmt)
20302033
*/
20312034
if (stmt->reverse)
20322035
{
2033-
if ((int32) (loop_value - step_value) > loop_value)
2036+
if (loop_value < (PG_INT32_MIN + step_value))
20342037
break;
20352038
loop_value -= step_value;
20362039
}
20372040
else
20382041
{
2039-
if ((int32) (loop_value + step_value) < loop_value)
2042+
if (loop_value > (PG_INT32_MAX - step_value))
20402043
break;
20412044
loop_value += step_value;
20422045
}

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)