| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, didier <did447(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, buildfarm(at)coelho(dot)net |
| Subject: | Re: LLVM compile failing in seawasp |
| Date: | 2019-07-28 21:50:32 |
| Message-ID: | CA+hUKGJPYjPAZwHY+8Jij16kAj3Pdxtibj4zxUG94Tmo25bwsQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 8:03 AM Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> wrote:
> If reordering includes is not an option, too bad. Then "#undef Min" which
> I find disputable, allthough I've done much worse... it might or might not
> work depending on what is done afterwards. Or rename the macro, as I
> suggested first, but there are many instances. Or convince LLVM people
> that they should change their stuff. Or document that pg jit will cannot
> use the latest LLVM, as a feature. Or find another solution:-)
Let's just commit the #undef so that seawasp is green and back to
being ready to tell us if something else breaks. Personally, I don't
see any reason why <random other project> should entertain a request
to change their variable names to avoid our short common word macros
that aren't even all-caps, but if someone asks them and they agree to
do that before the final 9.0 release we can just revert.
--
Thomas Munro
https://enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-07-28 21:55:33 | Re: LLVM compile failing in seawasp |
| Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2019-07-28 21:36:22 | Re: psql - add SHOW_ALL_RESULTS option |