| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Vik Fearing <vik(at)postgresfriends(dot)org>, cary huang <hcary328(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Add support for AT LOCAL |
| Date: | 2023-10-17 23:11:35 |
| Message-ID: | CA+hUKG+SYQ+MOXxt-bZhj2HzJXFADVW63UsF6xf504Y_bxx+og@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 11:54 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>
> > Given that IBM describes xlc as "legacy" (replaced by xlclang, but
> > still supported for some unspecified period of time for the benefit of
> > people who need C++ ABI compatibility with old code), I wonder how
> > long we plan to support it...
>
> Should we be testing against xlclang instead?
I hesitated to suggest it because it's not my animal/time we're
talking about but it seems to make more sense. It appears to be IBM's
answer to the nothing-builds-with-this-thing phenomenon, since it
accepts a lot of GCCisms via Clang's adoption of them. From a quick
glance at [1], it lacks the atomics builtins but we have our own
assembler magic for POWER. So maybe it'd all just work™.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2023-10-17 23:32:05 | Re: Add support for AT LOCAL |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-10-17 22:54:33 | Re: Add support for AT LOCAL |