On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 07:23:17PM +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > 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) The bit that worries me most is bindgen, and in particular detecting the version of libclang used. I mentioned to Nathan or Nick about needing a buildtime test for the version of LIBCLANG being used. I'm less worried about this for LLVM=1 builds, since while I think it is possible to provide a LIBCLANG path to the build system, I suspect that for LLVM=1 builds it's almost always going to match the LLVM toolchain in use. > > 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! I'll do another rebase and resend after the merge window closes I suppose :)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
