Re: Guiding principle for dropping LLVM versions?

On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 12:27 PM Devrim Gündüz <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org> wrote:
> Even though older LLVM versions exist on both RHEL and Fedora, they
> don't provide older Clang packages, which means we have to link to the
> latest release anyway (like currently Fedora 38 packages are waiting for
> LLVM 16 patch, as they cannot be linked against LLVM 15)

That's quite interesting, because it means that RHEL doesn't act as
the "lanterne route" for this, ie the most conservative relevant
distribution.

If we used Debian as a yardstick, PostgreSQL 17 wouldn't need anything
older than LLVM 14 AFAICS. Who else do we need to ask? Where could
we find this sort of information in machine-readable form (that is
feedback I got discussing the wiki page idea with people, ie that it
would be bound to become stale and abandoned)?

Fresh from doing battle with this stuff, I wanted to see what it would
look like if we dropped 3.9...13 in master:

11 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 367 deletions(-)

I noticed in passing that the LLVMOrcRegisterJITEventListener
configure probes are not present in meson.