Feedback-ID: id4a34324:Fastmail
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2026 14:19:03 -0400
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Make Intel's ICX compiler working
Message-ID: <e2xdm24z6rcnnjvtd6kcm2mhryootfpgogllbgvbmdkhe5p4jm@b72i6g2fnf2f>
References: <abF/u39fkpyHVskm@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
 <cswzz3vc7uk4gcxuzdqyx4j2iluhbkscngnlsiaihnl7ccwsp4@eq7vf56wxrj4>
 <abGwL2hIerWw3pEu@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <abGwL2hIerWw3pEu@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/e2xdm24z6rcnnjvtd6kcm2mhryootfpgogllbgvbmdkhe5p4jm%40b72i6g2fnf2f>
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On 2026-03-11 18:10:55 +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 11:08:01AM -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > I think that it makes sense to have ICX working (we took care of ICC in the past),
> > > so PFA, a patch implementing those changes for both autoconf and meson.
> > 
> > -many without some very very very good reasons.
> 
> The reasoning was that without the patch, one could still compile with ICX and
> get silent errors or worst segfault later on. The patch idea was to prevent
> those. That said, I agree that ICX looks buggy, so maybe we should just
> error out if we detect it's being used?

I don't think it's worth doing anything about random new compilers until
there's actually bogus reports coming in.  If the compiler developers want to
test postgres with their new thing, what's the gain from making that harder?

Greetings,

Andres Freund