Hi,
On 2022-09-13 22:45:46 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > So we could work around the xlc 12.1 issue with something like the attached
> > patch. It passes at some of the tests, with both 32 and 64bit xlc 12.1, will
> > have to wait a while to see more
>
> Shouldn't that be more like
>
> + if test "$pgac_cv_prog_CC_cflags__qvisibility_hidden" != "yes"; then
> + CFLAGS_SL_MODULE='$CFLAGS_SL_MODULE -Wl,-b,expfull'
> + fi
>
> to avoid losing whatever we found out before that?
Yes, you're right. There's nothing today, but we shouldn't assume that.
> > I think it'd be considerably better to just not support xlc < 13.1 though.
>
> A three-line patch doesn't seem like an unreasonable thing to carry,
> at least till these systems go out of support. We've jumped through
> much higher hoops in the past to support niche platforms.
xlc 12.1 *is* out of support and there's a newer compiler installed.
The amount of lines itself doesn't bother me. What does is that it makes an
already complicated platform more complicated: All symbols from extension
.so's are exported, but only for old and unsupported versions of the
proprietary compiler.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
