On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 11:54 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.com> writes: > > > Given that IBM describes xlc as "legacy" (replaced by xlclang, but > > still supported for some unspecified period of time for the benefit of > > people who need C++ ABI compatibility with old code), I wonder how > > long we plan to support it... > > Should we be testing against xlclang instead?
I hesitated to suggest it because it's not my animal/time we're talking about but it seems to make more sense. It appears to be IBM's answer to the nothing-builds-with-this-thing phenomenon, since it accepts a lot of GCCisms via Clang's adoption of them. From a quick glance at [1], it lacks the atomics builtins but we have our own assembler magic for POWER. So maybe it'd all just work™. [1] https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/xl-c-and-cpp-aix/16.1?topic=migration-checklist-when-moving-from-xl-based-front-end-clang-based-front-end
