Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 11:54 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Should we be testing against xlclang instead?
> I hesitated to suggest it because it's not my animal/time we're > talking about but it seems to make more sense. It appears to be IBM's > answer to the nothing-builds-with-this-thing phenomenon, since it > accepts a lot of GCCisms via Clang's adoption of them. From a quick > glance at [1], it lacks the atomics builtins but we have our own > assembler magic for POWER. So maybe it'd all just work™. Discounting the Windows animals, it looks like the xlc animals are our only remaining ones that use anything except gcc or clang. That feels uncomfortably like a compiler monoculture to me, so I can understand the reasoning for keeping hornet/mandrill going. Still, maybe we should just accept the fact that gcc/clang have outcompeted everything else in the C compiler universe. It's getting hard to imagine that anyone would bring out some new product that didn't try to be bug-compatible with gcc, for precisely the reason you mention. regards, tom lane