Re: Add support for AT LOCAL

Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 11:54 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)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