Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 06:03:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> After thinking about it a bit more, I'm not even convinced that what
>> xlc seems to be doing is illegal per C spec. There are no sequence
>> points within
>>
>> return list_make2(list_concat(directargs, orderedargs),
>> makeInteger(ndirectargs));
> There is, however, a sequence point between list_length(directargs) and
> list_concat(), and the problem arises because xlc reorders those two. It's
> true that makeInteger() could run before or after list_concat(), but that
> alone would not have been a problem.
Yeah, that is the theory on which the existing code is built,
specifically that the list_length fetch must occur before list_concat
runs. What I am wondering about is a more aggressive interpretation of
"sequence point", namely that the compiler is free to disregard exactly
when list_concat's side-effects occur between this statement's sequence
points. I'm not sure that the C spec allows that interpretation, but
I'm not sure it doesn't, either.
regards, tom lane
