| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Catalin Iacob <iacobcatalin(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Pierre Ducroquet <p(dot)psql(at)pinaraf(dot)info> |
| Subject: | Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v11 |
| Date: | 2018-03-15 18:34:03 |
| Message-ID: | 20180315183403.a3grsirlu4pnaj5u@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2018-03-15 19:14:09 +0100, Catalin Iacob wrote:
> For RHEL proper, I would guess that PG11 is too late for RHEL8 which,
> according to history, should be coming soon.
Yea.
> For RHEL9 I would really expect RedHat to add llvm and clang to proper
> RHEL and build/run against those, even if they add it only for
> Postgres (like they did for mesa).
By the looks of what's going to come for RHEL8 I think it already
contains a suitable LLVM and clang (i.e. >= 3.9)?
> As far as I know clang does promise gcc compatibility in
> the sense that one can link together .o files compiled with both so I
> expect the combination not to cause issues (assuming the other
> compiler flags affecting binary compatibility are aligned).
Right. But that's not even needed, as we just use plain old C ABI via
dlsym(). Nothing needs to be linked together outside of dlsym(), so I'm
not too concerned about that aspect.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2018-03-15 18:46:25 | Re: [HACKERS] Partition-wise aggregation/grouping |
| Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2018-03-15 18:20:33 | Re: INOUT parameters in procedures |