Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

llvmPackages_{4,5}: musl compat #35195

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Feb 19, 2018
Merged

llvmPackages_{4,5}: musl compat #35195

merged 2 commits into from Feb 19, 2018

Conversation

dtzWill
Copy link
Member

@dtzWill dtzWill commented Feb 19, 2018

Fix llvm, clang, libcxxClang.

  • Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option build-use-sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS)
  • Built on platform(s)
    • NixOS
    • macOS
    • other Linux distributions
  • Tested via one or more NixOS test(s) if existing and applicable for the change (look inside nixos/tests)
  • Tested compilation of all pkgs that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nox --run "nox-review wip"
  • Tested execution of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

Setting triples is part of one approach for enabling cross-compilation,
but for now only address native compilation and avoid rebuilds.


Prebuilt versions of these are available via cache.allvm.org if that's useful, details here: #34645 ("Quickstart with Binary Cache").

On Nix 2.0 you can probably use a temporary store or something to do this quickly without trusting the ALLVM cache system-wide...

@grahamc
Copy link
Member

grahamc commented Feb 19, 2018

@GrahamcOfBorg eval

An eval issue was introduced in to master, sorry for the false failure.

@dtzWill
Copy link
Member Author

dtzWill commented Feb 19, 2018

0 rebuilds folks, you've got nothing to lose! 😈

@7c6f434c
Copy link
Member

(looks carefully at the patches to find out the emergent interaction that will create a backdoor after some commit from LLVM repository lands in a 5.x release)

@7c6f434c 7c6f434c merged commit 81081ba into NixOS:master Feb 19, 2018
@7c6f434c
Copy link
Member

@dtzWill but if you start using such an argument, shouldn't you ask for commit access (or maybe should have asked, some time ago)?

@dtzWill
Copy link
Member Author

dtzWill commented Feb 19, 2018

@7c6f434c yes, and it's been supported and passed along... probably should have pursued it a while back.

Regarding the 5.x changes--do you mean regarding the sharing of the patch? It just seemed to have a bit less clutter, but if that makes things harder to reason about or maintain I'm happy to do something else :).

In my local tree I just copied patches everywhere 😁.

Anyway, if that's not what you meant please clarify-- even if it's not something that needs addressing now never hurts to learn what others see as style considerations or whatnot :).

@dtzWill dtzWill deleted the fix/llvm-musl branch February 19, 2018 19:56
@dtzWill dtzWill restored the fix/llvm-musl branch February 19, 2018 19:56
@dtzWill dtzWill deleted the fix/llvm-musl branch February 19, 2018 19:56
@7c6f434c
Copy link
Member

It's not a style consideration, I just tried to imagine a situation where not changing anything currently built does not prevent the change from being unsafe in the long run.

@7c6f434c
Copy link
Member

Re: access: I think you were asking for it wrong. @domenkozar @rbvermaa which of you is a better repository co-owner to ask?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants