Peter Eisentraut <pe...@eisentraut.org> writes:
> On 25.04.24 06:20, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Something I've been mulling over is whether to suggest that the
>> proposed "new port" should only target building with gcc.
> My understanding is that the old xlc is dead and has been replaced by
> "xlclang", which is presumably an xlc-compatible frontend on top of
> clang/llvm. Hopefully, that will have fewer issues.
[ googles... ] Actually it seems to be the other way around:
per [1] xlclang is a clang-based front end to IBM's existing
codegen+optimization logic, and the xlc front end is still there too.
It's not at all clear that they have any intention of killing off xlc.
Not sure where that leaves us in terms of either one being an
interesting target to support. xlclang is presumably an easier lift
to get working, but that also makes it much less interesting from
the preserve-our-portability standpoint.
regards, tom lane
[1]
https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/xl-c-and-cpp-aix/16.1?topic=new-clang-based-front-end
