Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2015-08-05 10:08:10 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmm. I notice that this removes Noah's hack from commit c53f73879f552a3c.
>> Do we care about breaking old versions of xlc, and if so, how are we going
>> to fix that? (I assume it should be possible to override AC_C_INLINE's
>> result, but I'm not sure where would be a good place to do so.)

> Hm. That's a good point.

> How about moving that error check into into the aix template file and
> erroring out there? Since this is master I think it's perfectly fine to
> refuse to work with the buggy unsupported 32 bit compiler. The argument
> not to do so was that PG previously worked in the back branches
> depending on the minor version, but that's not an argument on master.

The check as Noah wrote it rejects *all* 32-bit IBM compilers, not just
buggy ones. That was okay when the effect was only a rather minor
performance loss, but refusing to build at all would raise the stakes
quite a lot. Unless you are volunteering to find out how to tell broken
compilers from fixed ones more accurately, I think you need to confine
the effects of the check to disabling inlining.

regards, tom lane