maria-developers team mailing list archive

[Sergei Golubchik <serg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi, Steve!

On Oct 27, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-10-27 at 12:12 +0200, Sergei Golubchik wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Two answers:
> > There should be no strtod, because the argument of the cast(... as double)
> > is not a string, but a decimal number. I'd expect the conversion to
> > happen in decimal2double() function.
> > Secondly, I think you're right - it is not.
> 
> OK, that is a big help.  I looked at decimal2double and that is where
> the problem occurs.  IA64 has an fma (fused multiply and add)
> instruction and if you use it you can get slightly different results
> then you would if you did a multiply followed by a separate add
> instruction because with fma the result of the multiplication is not
> truncated before you do the addition.  If I put '#pragma STDC
> FP_CONTRACT OFF' before decimal2double (and #pragma STDC FP_CONTRACT ON)
> afterwards then the function does not use the fma instruction and the
> main.cast test does not fail.  This would only work with the HP compiler
> though, if someone compiled with GCC on IA64, it would still fail
> because GCC does not honor the FP_CONTRACT pragma.
> 
> I am not sure if we want to do this as a permanent fix though, if we fix
> the test to use a value that is exactly representable as a double
> (say .5 instead of .1 or something like that) then I would probably not
> try to add the pragma and/or use an option to turn off fma usage because
> that would slow the code down.

Yes, I agree absolutely.
Let's fix the test instead.
Was that cast(cast(20010203101112.1 as double) as datetime(1)) the only
one that failed?

> > > FYI: The other failure I get is main.cast, this test is trying to
> > > check for a stack overflow before it happens but IA64 HP-UX  has
> > > two stacks, a register stack and a user data stack.
> > 
> > Okay. What would you suggest? Just disable the test in the test
> > suite?  Do not check for stack overflow on IA64 HP-UX at all?  Check
> > for both stacks?
> 
> I will spend some time seeing how easy/hard it would be to check both
> stacks.  One question I have about the current stack check is in
> check_stack_overrun there is:
> 
>  if ((stack_used=used_stack(thd->thread_stack,(char*) &stack_used)) >=
>       (long) (my_thread_stack_size - margin))
> 
> I believe that thd->thread_stack should be pointing at the base of the
> stack we are checking for overflow, but I see that that variable is set
> in a lot of places, mostly with:
> 
> thd->thread_stack = (char*)&thd;
> 
> Why is thd->thread_stack set in so many different places?  If I need to
> save the base of the IA64 register stack in all those places too, that
> would be touching a lot of files.

Because new THD is created or initialized in all these places. The
pattern is

 {
   THD *thd;
   thd= new THD;
   thd->thread_stack= (char*) &thd;
   ... // do some work
   delete new_thd;
 }

Regards,
Sergei