Re: LLVM breakage on seawasp
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org,Thomas Munro
<thomas.munro@gmail.com>,pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2019-08-24T21:39:32Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Hi, On August 24, 2019 2:37:55 PM PDT, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: >> On August 24, 2019 1:57:56 PM PDT, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.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.
Commits
-
Don't rely on llvm::make_unique.
- ee18293a4e72 11.6 landed
- 54ff1c34f11b 12.0 landed
- f493d98c1673 13.0 landed