On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 2:23 PM Andres Freund <andres@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