Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rash...@gmail.com> writes:
> So the "test for overflow by reverse-conversion" obviously isn't
> working as intended, and it's going through power_var_int() when it
> shouldn't. I don't think there's anything wrong with that code, so I
> think this is a compiler bug.
Yeah, looks like one.
> I guess the best thing to do is just test the value against
> PG_INT32_MIN/MAX, which is what int84() does. There are 2 other places
> in numeric.c that use similar code to check for int16/32 overflow, so
> it's possible that they're broken in the same way on that platform,
> but they aren't covered by the regression tests, so it's also possible
> that they're OK. Anyway, something like the attached seems likely to
> be safer.
Looks plausible by eyeball (I've not tested).
regards, tom lane
