Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6

On 2015-08-05 17:19:05 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-08-05 11:12:34 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > > Ok, lets' do it that way then. It seems the easiest way to test for this
> > > is to use something like
> >
> > > # "IBM XL C/C++ for AIX, V12.1" miscompiles, for 32-bit, some inline
> > > # expansions of ginCompareItemPointers() "long long" arithmetic. To
> > > # take advantage of inlining, build a 64-bit PostgreSQL.
> > > test $(getconf HARDWARE_BITMODE) == '32' then
> > > CFLAGS="$CFLAGS -DPG_FORCE_DISABLE_INLINE"
> > > fi

So that approach doesn't work out well because the 32 bit xlc can be
installed on the 64 bit system.

> > Actually, much the easiest way to convert what Noah did would be to add
> >
> > #if defined(__ILP32__) && defined(__IBMC__)
> > #define PG_FORCE_DISABLE_INLINE
> > #endif
> >
> > in src/include/port/aix.h.

Therefore I'm going to reshuffle things in that direction tomorrow. I'll
wait for other fallout first though. So far only gcc, xlc and clang (via
gcc frontend) have run...

Greetings,

Andres Freund