On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 11:54 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@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