Hi, On 2022-09-13 22:45:46 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@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
