Hi,
On 2022-07-27 14:02:28 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > On 2022-07-18 00:05:16 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> Given that that's just about all compilers we support using configure, perhaps
> >> we should just move that out of the compiler specific section? Doesn't look
> >> like there's much precedent for that so far...
>
> > Here's a potential patch along those lines.
>
> Now that the dust from the main patch is pretty well settled, +1
> for trying that.
Here's an updated patch for this (also shared recently on another thread). I
was wrong earlier saying that -fvisibility works for xlc - it is accepted, but
just as some sort of input file. We do need -qvisibility.
I tested it on aix and solaris, both with gcc and their proprietary compilers
and confirmed that it indeed does reduce the number of exposed symbols.
I also attached the aix patch to not use mkldexport for extension anymore, as
I tested the patches in that order. I plan to push the aix one as soon as as
hoverfly and sungazer ran once after e5484554ba9.
> > I wonder if we also should move the -fno-strict-aliasing, -fwrapv tests
> > out. But that'd be something for later.
>
> Those seem less likely to be portable to non-gcc-alike compilers.
> On the other hand, maybe it'd be interesting to just remove the
> conditionality temporarily and try ALL the switches on all compilers,
> just to see what we can learn from the buildfarm.
Unfortunately, given the discovery of xlc accepting -f... silently that's
probably not feasible. We'd have to make it at least conditional on not being
xlc. Everything else we support does seem to be ok with -fxxx flags.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
