Re: Do we work with LLVM 12 on s390x? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Honza Horak
Subject Re: Do we work with LLVM 12 on s390x?
Date
Msg-id 87c462db-cc55-f2a4-208b-d716d0e6e7a3@redhat.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Do we work with LLVM 12 on s390x?  (Tom Stellard <tstellar@redhat.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 4/22/21 6:35 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:
> On 4/21/21 6:40 AM, Honza Horak wrote:
>> On 3/19/21 8:15 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
>>>> I think the error above comes from a "mismatch" between the clang used
>>>> to compile bitcode, and the LLVM version linked to. Normally we're
>>>> somewhat tolerant of differences between the two, but there was an ABI
>>>> change at some point, leading to that error.  IIRC I hit that, but it
>>>> vanished as soon as I used a matching libllvm and clang.
>>>
>>> Thanks, I passed that advice on.
>>>
>>>             regards, tom lane
>>
>> Tom Stellard was so kind to look at this issue deeper with his LLVM 
>> skills and found PostgreSQL is not actually handling the LLVM 
>> perfectly. He's working on improving the patch, but sharing even the 
>> first attempt with upstream seems like a good idea:
>>
>> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/postgresql/pull-request/29
>>
> 
> I wrote a new patch based on the bug discussion[1].  It works around
> the issue specifically on s390x rather than disabling specific
> CPUs and features for all targets.  The patch is attached.
> 
> 
> [1] 
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/16971-5d004d34742a3d35%40postgresql.org 

Thanks, Tom, it looks good in koji build, so merging so far. We very 
much appreciate your help here.

Cheers,
Honza

> 
>> Regards,
>> Honza
>>
> 




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Incorrect snapshots while promoting hot standby node when 2PC is used
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: tab-complete for ALTER TABLE .. DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY