Re: LLVM breakage on seawasp

Hi,

On August 24, 2019 2:37:55 PM PDT, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>> On August 24, 2019 1:57:56 PM PDT, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
>wrote:
>>> So we're depending on APIs that upstream doesn't think are stable?
>
>> Seawasp iirc builds against the development branch of llvm, which
>explains why we see failures there. Does that address what you are
>concerned about? If not, could you expand?
>
>I know it's the development branch. The question is whether this
>breakage is something *they* ought to be fixing. If not, I'm
>worried that we're too much in bed with implementation details
>of LLVM that we shouldn't be depending on.

Don't think so - it's a C++ standard feature in the version of the standard LLVM is based on. So it's pretty reasonable for them to drop their older backwards compatible function.

Access
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.