On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 05:23:12PM +0200, Kalle Valo wrote: > Nathan Chancellor <nathan@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > >> This is nitpicking but it would be nice if the tarball contents wouldn't > >> conflict with each other. Now both llvm-16.0.0-aarch64.tar.gz and > >> llvm-16.0.0-x86_64.tar extract to the same directory llvm-16.0.0 with > >> same binary names. It would be much better if they would extract to > >> llvm-16.0.0-aarch64 and llvm-16.0.0-x86_64, respectively. > >> > >> For example, Arnd's crosstool packages don't conflict with each other: > >> > >> https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/ > > > > I could certainly do that but what is the use case for extracting both? > > You cannot run the aarch64 version on an x86_64 host and vice versa, so > > why bother extracting them? > > Ah, I didn't realise that. I assumed llvm-16.0.0-aarch64.tar.gz was a > cross compiler. I'm sure you documented that in the page but hey who > reads the documentation ;) :) I have adjusted the README to hopefully make that clearer. > > I had figured the architecture would be irrelevant once installed on > > the host, so I opted only to include it in the tarball name. Perhaps I > > should make it clearer that these are the host architectures, not the > > target architectures (because clang is multi-targeted, unlike GCC)? > > Makes sense now. But I still think it's good style that a tarball named > llvm-16.0.0-aarch64.tar.gz extracts to llvm-16.0.0-aarch64. Indeed, I have adjusted it for future builds: https://github.com/nathanchance/env/commit/314837e6706889138121a32140d2acdc7895d390 > >> And maybe request a similar llvm directory under pub/tools to make it > >> more official? :) We now have https://kernel.org/pub/tools/llvm/, which is about as official as we can get I suppose :) https://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/nathan/llvm/ now points people there. Cheers, Nathan
