| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: LLVM breakage on seawasp |
| Date: | 2019-08-24 21:37:55 |
| Message-ID: | 343.1566682675@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On August 24, 2019 1:57:56 PM PDT, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> So we're depending on APIs that upstream doesn't think are stable?
> Seawasp iirc builds against the development branch of llvm, which explains why we see failures there. Does that address what you are concerned about? If not, could you expand?
I know it's the development branch. The question is whether this
breakage is something *they* ought to be fixing. If not, I'm
worried that we're too much in bed with implementation details
of LLVM that we shouldn't be depending on.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2019-08-24 21:39:32 | Re: LLVM breakage on seawasp |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2019-08-24 21:15:35 | Re: LLVM breakage on seawasp |