On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 2:23 PM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > It's good to make sure we're not growing too reliant on some compiler(s), but > imo only really makes sense if the alternative compilers are meaningfully > available and maintained.
That's a sensible position. I do worry that with this proposed move we're going to be giving up some of the flexibility that we have right now. I'm not sure exactly what that means in practice. But make is just a way of running shell commands, and so you can run any shell commands you want. The concept of some compiler not being supported isn't really a thing that even makes sense in a world that is powered by make. With a big enough hammer you can run any commands you like, including any compilation commands you like. The whole thing is likely to be a bit crufty which is a downside, and you might spend more time fiddling with it than you really want. But nothing is really ever blocked. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com