Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v9.1 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v9.1
Date
Msg-id 20180215172310.dk66viy727xxyvgs@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v9.1  (Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se>)
Responses Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v9.1  (Andreas Karlsson <andreas@proxel.se>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On 2018-02-15 12:54:34 +0100, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> 1) Why does config/llvm.m4 modify CPPFLAGS? That affects the building of the
> binaries too which may be done with gcc like in my case. Shouldn't it use a
> LLVM_CPPFLAGS or something?

Well, most of the time cppflags just are things like additional include
directories. And the established precedent is to just add those to the
global cppflags (c.f. libxml stuff in configure in).  I've no problem
changing this, I just followed established practice.


> 2) When I build with --with-cassert I expect the assertions to be there,
> both in the binaries and the bitcode. Is that just a bug or is there any
> thought behind this?

Not sure what you mean by that. NDEBUG and cassert are independent
mechanisms, no?

Greetings,

Andres Freund


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Add void cast to StaticAssertExpr?
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Let's remove DSM_INPL_NONE.