Horton

Re: LLVM 16 (opaque pointers)

Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
To: Mark Wong <markwkm@gmail.com>
Cc: Ronan Dunklau <ronan.dunklau@aiven.io>, Devrim Gündüz <devrim@gunduz.org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Date: 2023-10-21T00:45:31Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. jit: Adjust back-patch of f90b4a84 to 12 and 13.

  2. Log LLVM library version in configure output.

  3. jit: Changes for LLVM 17.

  4. jit: Supply LLVMGlobalGetValueType() for LLVM < 8.

  5. jit: Support opaque pointers in LLVM 16.

  6. jit: Reference function pointer types via llvmjit_types.c.

On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 12:02 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 11:12 AM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > I'm quite sure that jiting did pass on ppc64 at some point.
>
> Yeah, I remember debugging it on EDB's POWER machine.  First off, we
> know that LLVM < 7 doesn't work for us on POWER, because:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAEepm%3D39F_B3Ou8S3OrUw%2BhJEUP3p%3DwCu0ug-TTW67qKN53g3w%40mail.gmail.com
>
> That was fixed:
>
> https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/a95b0df5eddbe7fa1e9f8fe0b1ff62427e1c0318
>
> So I think that means that we'd first have to go through those animals
> and figure out which ones have older LLVM, and ignore those results --
> they just can't use --with-llvm.  Unfortunately there doesn't seem to
> be any clue on the version from the paths used by OpenSUSE.  Mark, do
> you know?

Adding Mark to this subthread.  Concretely, could you please disable
--with-llvm on any of those machines running LLVM < 7?  And report
what version any remaining animals are running?  (It'd be nice if the
build farm logged "$LLVM_CONFIG --version" somewhere.)  One of them
seems to have clang 5 which is a clue -- if the LLVM is also 5 it's
just not going to work, as LLVM is one of those forwards-only projects
that doesn't back-patch fixes like that.