On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 12:31 PM Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 6.6 came and went, and I have been busy dealing with the other > responsibilities I mentioned and have not had a chance to look here. > I rebased this today and things still work as they did when I submitted > this version, but things have gotten muddier on the LLVM side of things, > as more recent versions have added yet more extension support. Sounds fun :) > My inclination at this point is to engage in a bit of LARPing as an > ostrich, and sorta ignore these concerns initially. Specifically, I'd > like to drop the idea of having the gcc support, and restrict to LLVM=1. Yeah, if `LLVM=1` works, then I would suggest going ahead with that. (Now that `rustc_codegen_gcc` is here, we will move to that and forget about mixed compiler builds, but we still have to handle `bindgen` flags until we have an alternative for that) > When it comes to asymmetrical extension support between the C and Rust > toolchains, I'm think we deal with that as we do for the C toolchains, > sort issues out as-and-when they arrive rather than punt this again. Sounds good, thanks a lot! Cheers, Miguel
