Hi, On 2019-05-23 14:05:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > On 2019-05-23 13:46:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I'm not really excited about adopting a position that PG will only > >> build on GCC and clones thereof. > > > That's not what I said though? Not supporting one compiler, on an OS > > that's effectively not being developed anymore, with a pretty > > indefensible behaviour, requiring not insignificant work by everyone, > > isn't the same as standardizing on gcc. I mean, we obviously are going > > to continue at the absolute very least gcc, llvm/clang and msvc. > > I think you're vastly overstating the case for refusing support for this. > Adding "#ifndef FRONTEND" to relevant headers isn't a huge amount of work > --- it's certainly far less of a problem than the Microsoft-droppings > we've had to put in in so many places. The only real issue in my mind > is the lack of buildfarm support for detecting that we need to do so.
Well, doing it for every single inline function is pretty annoying, just from a bulkiness perspective. And figuring out exactly which inline function needs this isn't easy without something that actually shows the problem. > Also relevant here is that you have no evidence for the assumption that > these old Solaris compilers are the only live platform with the problem. > Yeah, we wish our buildfarm covered everything of interest, but it does > not. Maybe, if we get to beta2 without any additional reports of build > failures on beta1, that would be a bit of evidence that nobody else cares > --- but we have no such evidence right now. We certainly can't assume > that any pre-v12 release provides evidence of that, because up till > I retired pademelon, it was forcing us to keep this case supported. I don't think I'm advocating for not fixing the issue we had for solaris, for 12. I just don't think this a reasonable approach going forward. Greetings, Andres Freund
