GNU bug report logs - #25879
[PATCH] gnu: Add LLVM and CLANG 3.9.1.

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 25879 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 25879 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Roel Janssen <roel <at> gnu.org>
To: guix-patches <at> gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Add LLVM and CLANG 3.9.1.
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 12:01:41 +0100

[0001-gnu-Add-LLVM-and-CLANG-3.9.1.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[Message part 2 (text/plain, inline)]

Dear Guix,

Here's a patch to add LLVM and CLANG 3.9.1.  I need these to add
Darktable.  It could be that I messed up the commit message.  If I did,
please let me know the correct form.

Thanks!

Kind regards,
Roel Janssen

Message #8 received at 25879 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Catonano <catonano <at> gmail.com>
To: Roel Janssen <roel <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 25879 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#25879: [PATCH] gnu: Add LLVM and CLANG 3.9.1.
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2017 21:18:12 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

2017-02-26 12:01 GMT+01:00 Roel Janssen <roel <at> gnu.org>:

> Dear Guix,
>
> Here's a patch to add LLVM and CLANG 3.9.1.  I need these to add
> Darktable.  It could be that I messed up the commit message.  If I did,
> please let me know the correct form.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Kind regards,
> Roel Janssen
>


Ok, this has been sitting here or 6 days now, so even though I'm a
beginner, I'll attempt an answer

I consulted the gnu standard, here
https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Change-Logs.html#Change-Logs

and based on that, I would say that the  lines
* gnu/packages/llvm.scm (llvm-3.9.1): New variable.
* gnu/packages/llvm.scm (clang-3.9.1): New variable.
* gnu/packages/llvm.scm (clang-runtime-3.9.1): New variable.

are ok

What leaves me dubious is the "and" in the subject line

The gnu standard doesn't mention anything about it but in the guix git repo
log I can't see a single occurrence of an "and", probably because the habit
is one patch per package

So I would suggest you to break this into a patchset of 2 parts: one with
 llvm-3.9.1 with subject
"[PATCH] gnu: Add LLVM"

* gnu/packages/llvm.scm (llvm-3.9.1): New variable.

and another one with subect
Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Add CLANG 3.9.1

* gnu/packages/llvm.scm (clang-3.9.1): New variable.
* gnu/packages/llvm.scm (clang-runtime-3.9.1): New variable.

the sencond one will have  clang-runtime-3.9.1 and clang-3.9.1 in it

That should do

As for if it builds and run, I'd leave that to someone else. My laptop
overheats easily

HTH !

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #11 received at 25879 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Catonano <catonano <at> gmail.com>
To: Roel Janssen <roel <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 25879 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#25879: [PATCH] gnu: Add LLVM and CLANG 3.9.1.
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2017 21:39:02 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Let me amend:

in the log I see an occurrence with a comma, rather than an "and", like this

commit 3b175eab84f9899804b466506a57b5807285150a
Author: Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com>
Commit: Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com>

    gnu: nss, nss-certs: Update to 3.29.2.

    * gnu/packages/certs.scm (nss-certs): Update to 3.29.2.
    * gnu/packages/gnuzilla.scm (nss): Update to 3.29.2.
    * gnu/packages/patches/nss-pkgconfig.patch: Adapt to context changes.


You could probably do like this

Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Add LLVM, CLANG 3.9.1.

* gnu/packages/llvm.scm (llvm-3.9.1): New variable.
* gnu/packages/llvm.scm (clang-3.9.1): New variable.
* gnu/packages/llvm.scm (clang-runtime-3.9.1): New variable.

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #14 received at 25879 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
To: Roel Janssen <roel <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 25879 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#25879: [PATCH] gnu: Add LLVM and CLANG 3.9.1.
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 18:19:16 +0100

Hi Roel!

Roel Janssen <roel <at> gnu.org> skribis:

>>From aaef88b2ab14fd0c631ae7fec296fd899ebf42dd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Roel Janssen <roel <at> gnu.org>
> Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 11:57:34 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Add LLVM and CLANG 3.9.1.
>
> * gnu/packages/llvm.scm (llvm-3.9.1): New variable.
> * gnu/packages/llvm.scm (clang-3.9.1): New variable.
> * gnu/packages/llvm.scm (clang-runtime-3.9.1): New variable.

I agree with Catonano here, no need to repeat the file name.  :-)

> +(define-public llvm-3.9.1
> +  (package (inherit llvm)
> +    (name "llvm")
> +    (version "3.9.1")
> +    (source
> +     (origin
> +      (method url-fetch)
> +      (uri (string-append "http://llvm.org/releases/"
> +                          version "/llvm-" version ".src.tar.xz"))
> +      (sha256
> +       (base32
> +        "1vi9sf7rx1q04wj479rsvxayb6z740iaz3qniwp266fgp5a07n8z"))))))
> +
> +(define-public clang-runtime-3.9.1
> +  (clang-runtime-from-llvm
> +   llvm-3.9.1
> +   "16gc2gdmp5c800qvydrdhsp0bzb97s8wrakl6i8a4lgslnqnf2fk"))
> +
> +(define-public clang-3.9.1
> +  (clang-from-llvm llvm-3.9.1 clang-runtime-3.9.1
> +                   "0qsyyb40iwifhhlx9a3drf8z6ni6zwyk3bvh0kx2gs6yjsxwxi76"
> +                   #:patches '()))

Could you add a comment explaining why we need to keep this version
specifically?

Other than that LGTM.

Thanks!

Ludo’.

Message #17 received at 25879 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Roel Janssen <roel <at> gnu.org>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 25879 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#25879: [PATCH] gnu: Add LLVM and CLANG 3.9.1.
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 19:54:34 +0100

Ludovic Courtès writes:

> Hi Roel!
>
> Roel Janssen <roel <at> gnu.org> skribis:
>
>>>From aaef88b2ab14fd0c631ae7fec296fd899ebf42dd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Roel Janssen <roel <at> gnu.org>
>> Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 11:57:34 +0100
>> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Add LLVM and CLANG 3.9.1.
>>
>> * gnu/packages/llvm.scm (llvm-3.9.1): New variable.
>> * gnu/packages/llvm.scm (clang-3.9.1): New variable.
>> * gnu/packages/llvm.scm (clang-runtime-3.9.1): New variable.
>
> I agree with Catonano here, no need to repeat the file name.  :-)
>
>> +(define-public llvm-3.9.1
>> +  (package (inherit llvm)
>> +    (name "llvm")
>> +    (version "3.9.1")
>> +    (source
>> +     (origin
>> +      (method url-fetch)
>> +      (uri (string-append "http://llvm.org/releases/"
>> +                          version "/llvm-" version ".src.tar.xz"))
>> +      (sha256
>> +       (base32
>> +        "1vi9sf7rx1q04wj479rsvxayb6z740iaz3qniwp266fgp5a07n8z"))))))
>> +
>> +(define-public clang-runtime-3.9.1
>> +  (clang-runtime-from-llvm
>> +   llvm-3.9.1
>> +   "16gc2gdmp5c800qvydrdhsp0bzb97s8wrakl6i8a4lgslnqnf2fk"))
>> +
>> +(define-public clang-3.9.1
>> +  (clang-from-llvm llvm-3.9.1 clang-runtime-3.9.1
>> +                   "0qsyyb40iwifhhlx9a3drf8z6ni6zwyk3bvh0kx2gs6yjsxwxi76"
>> +                   #:patches '()))
>
> Could you add a comment explaining why we need to keep this version
> specifically?
>
> Other than that LGTM.

Well, actually, this is just the latest release, so maybe I should
update the 3.8.1 recipe to3.9.1 instead.  WDYT?

Kind regards,
Roel Janssen

Message #20 received at 25879 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
To: Roel Janssen <roel <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 25879 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#25879: [PATCH] gnu: Add LLVM and CLANG 3.9.1.
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 21:06:28 +0100

Roel Janssen <roel <at> gnu.org> skribis:

> Ludovic Courtès writes:
>
>> Hi Roel!
>>
>> Roel Janssen <roel <at> gnu.org> skribis:
>>
>>>>From aaef88b2ab14fd0c631ae7fec296fd899ebf42dd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Roel Janssen <roel <at> gnu.org>
>>> Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 11:57:34 +0100
>>> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Add LLVM and CLANG 3.9.1.
>>>
>>> * gnu/packages/llvm.scm (llvm-3.9.1): New variable.
>>> * gnu/packages/llvm.scm (clang-3.9.1): New variable.
>>> * gnu/packages/llvm.scm (clang-runtime-3.9.1): New variable.
>>
>> I agree with Catonano here, no need to repeat the file name.  :-)
>>
>>> +(define-public llvm-3.9.1
>>> +  (package (inherit llvm)
>>> +    (name "llvm")
>>> +    (version "3.9.1")
>>> +    (source
>>> +     (origin
>>> +      (method url-fetch)
>>> +      (uri (string-append "http://llvm.org/releases/"
>>> +                          version "/llvm-" version ".src.tar.xz"))
>>> +      (sha256
>>> +       (base32
>>> +        "1vi9sf7rx1q04wj479rsvxayb6z740iaz3qniwp266fgp5a07n8z"))))))
>>> +
>>> +(define-public clang-runtime-3.9.1
>>> +  (clang-runtime-from-llvm
>>> +   llvm-3.9.1
>>> +   "16gc2gdmp5c800qvydrdhsp0bzb97s8wrakl6i8a4lgslnqnf2fk"))
>>> +
>>> +(define-public clang-3.9.1
>>> +  (clang-from-llvm llvm-3.9.1 clang-runtime-3.9.1
>>> +                   "0qsyyb40iwifhhlx9a3drf8z6ni6zwyk3bvh0kx2gs6yjsxwxi76"
>>> +                   #:patches '()))
>>
>> Could you add a comment explaining why we need to keep this version
>> specifically?
>>
>> Other than that LGTM.
>
> Well, actually, this is just the latest release, so maybe I should
> update the 3.8.1 recipe to3.9.1 instead.  WDYT?

If the other users of LLVM and Clang (as per ‘guix refresh -l llvm’) can
cope with it, upgrading sounds better indeed.  Could you check if that
is the case?

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Message #23 received at 25879 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Pjotr Prins <pjotr.public12 <at> thebird.nl>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 25879 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Roel Janssen <roel <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: bug#25879: [PATCH] gnu: Add LLVM and CLANG 3.9.1.
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 21:24:11 +0000

On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 09:06:28PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> > Well, actually, this is just the latest release, so maybe I should
> > update the 3.8.1 recipe to3.9.1 instead.  WDYT?
> 
> If the other users of LLVM and Clang (as per ‘guix refresh -l llvm’) can
> cope with it, upgrading sounds better indeed.  Could you check if that
> is the case?

With LLVM it is probably a good idea to keep the major versions as
packages tend to lag after latest. Many compiler writers are a bit
behind and sometimes people want to use older compilers (like with
Julia).

Pj.
-- 

Message #26 received at 25879 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eric Bavier <ericbavier <at> centurylink.net>
To: roel <at> gnu.org
Cc: 25879 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#25879: [PATCH] gnu: Add LLVM and CLANG 3.9.1.
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 21:31:22 -0500

Thanks for the patch!

I have another package that needs 3.9 in its latest version, so I'm
interested in getting it merged.  Just one comment/question:

Roel Janssen <roel <at> gnu.org> writes:

>>From aaef88b2ab14fd0c631ae7fec296fd899ebf42dd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Roel Janssen <roel <at> gnu.org>
> Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 11:57:34 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Add LLVM and CLANG 3.9.1.
>
> * gnu/packages/llvm.scm (llvm-3.9.1): New variable.
> * gnu/packages/llvm.scm (clang-3.9.1): New variable.
> * gnu/packages/llvm.scm (clang-runtime-3.9.1): New variable.
> ---
> +(define-public clang-3.9.1
> +  (clang-from-llvm llvm-3.9.1 clang-runtime-3.9.1
> +                   "0qsyyb40iwifhhlx9a3drf8z6ni6zwyk3bvh0kx2gs6yjsxwxi76"
> +                   #:patches '()))

Does clang 3.9 not need the libc-search-path patch that is applied in
other versions?

`~Eric

Message #29 received at 25879 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>
To: Pjotr Prins <pjotr.public12 <at> thebird.nl>
Cc: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>, 25879 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Roel Janssen <roel <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: bug#25879: [PATCH] gnu: Add LLVM and CLANG 3.9.1.
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 08:11:52 +0200

Pjotr Prins <pjotr.public12 <at> thebird.nl> writes:

> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 09:06:28PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> > Well, actually, this is just the latest release, so maybe I should
>> > update the 3.8.1 recipe to3.9.1 instead.  WDYT?
>>
>> If the other users of LLVM and Clang (as per ‘guix refresh -l llvm’) can
>> cope with it, upgrading sounds better indeed.  Could you check if that
>> is the case?
>
> With LLVM it is probably a good idea to keep the major versions as
> packages tend to lag after latest. Many compiler writers are a bit
> behind and sometimes people want to use older compilers (like with
> Julia).

I agree.

@Roel: I see that this patch hasn’t been pushed yet.  Is there anything
missing or was it just forgotten?

--
Ricardo

GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6  2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC
https://elephly.net

Message #34 received at 25879 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Roel Janssen <roel <at> gnu.org>
To: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>
Cc: 25879 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Pjotr Prins <pjotr.public12 <at> thebird.nl>,
 Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: bug#25879: [PATCH] gnu: Add LLVM and CLANG 3.9.1.
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 08:57:57 +0200

Ricardo Wurmus writes:

> Pjotr Prins <pjotr.public12 <at> thebird.nl> writes:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 09:06:28PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>>> > Well, actually, this is just the latest release, so maybe I should
>>> > update the 3.8.1 recipe to3.9.1 instead.  WDYT?
>>>
>>> If the other users of LLVM and Clang (as per ‘guix refresh -l llvm’) can
>>> cope with it, upgrading sounds better indeed.  Could you check if that
>>> is the case?
>>
>> With LLVM it is probably a good idea to keep the major versions as
>> packages tend to lag after latest. Many compiler writers are a bit
>> behind and sometimes people want to use older compilers (like with
>> Julia).
>
> I agree.
>
> @Roel: I see that this patch hasn’t been pushed yet.  Is there anything
> missing or was it just forgotten?

I think the idea was to upgrade, instead of have this newer version next
to the current version.  The upgrade involves a lot of rebuilding, and I
am stuck at compiling 'dub' with 3.9.1.

If we can instead apply this patch as (having both 3.8.1 and 3.9.1), we
can push it, and after that add the darktable patch as well.

Kind regards,
Roel Janssen

Message #37 received at 25879 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>
To: Roel Janssen <roel <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 25879 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Pjotr Prins <pjotr.public12 <at> thebird.nl>,
 Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: bug#25879: [PATCH] gnu: Add LLVM and CLANG 3.9.1.
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 12:07:10 +0200

Roel Janssen <roel <at> gnu.org> writes:

> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>
>> Pjotr Prins <pjotr.public12 <at> thebird.nl> writes:
>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 09:06:28PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>>>> > Well, actually, this is just the latest release, so maybe I should
>>>> > update the 3.8.1 recipe to3.9.1 instead.  WDYT?
>>>>
>>>> If the other users of LLVM and Clang (as per ‘guix refresh -l llvm’) can
>>>> cope with it, upgrading sounds better indeed.  Could you check if that
>>>> is the case?
>>>
>>> With LLVM it is probably a good idea to keep the major versions as
>>> packages tend to lag after latest. Many compiler writers are a bit
>>> behind and sometimes people want to use older compilers (like with
>>> Julia).
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>> @Roel: I see that this patch hasn’t been pushed yet.  Is there anything
>> missing or was it just forgotten?
>
> I think the idea was to upgrade, instead of have this newer version next
> to the current version.  The upgrade involves a lot of rebuilding, and I
> am stuck at compiling 'dub' with 3.9.1.
>
> If we can instead apply this patch as (having both 3.8.1 and 3.9.1), we
> can push it, and after that add the darktable patch as well.

I think it’s fine to have multiple versions of LLVM + Clang around,
especially considering that in my experience many dependent projects
won’t build with later versions without adjustments.  (RStudio, for
example, still insists on the oldest version of Clang that we offer, and
it crashes with later versions.)

It would be good to keep an eye on this, though, to make sure that we
don’t provide outdated versions that have no users and no maintainer.

--
Ricardo

GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6  2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC
https://elephly.net

Message #40 received at 25879 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Roel Janssen <roel <at> gnu.org>
To: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>
Cc: 25879 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Pjotr Prins <pjotr.public12 <at> thebird.nl>,
 Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: bug#25879: [PATCH] gnu: Add LLVM and CLANG 3.9.1.
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 12:17:53 +0200

Ricardo Wurmus writes:

> Roel Janssen <roel <at> gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>>
>>> Pjotr Prins <pjotr.public12 <at> thebird.nl> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 09:06:28PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>>>>> > Well, actually, this is just the latest release, so maybe I should
>>>>> > update the 3.8.1 recipe to3.9.1 instead.  WDYT?
>>>>>
>>>>> If the other users of LLVM and Clang (as per ‘guix refresh -l llvm’) can
>>>>> cope with it, upgrading sounds better indeed.  Could you check if that
>>>>> is the case?
>>>>
>>>> With LLVM it is probably a good idea to keep the major versions as
>>>> packages tend to lag after latest. Many compiler writers are a bit
>>>> behind and sometimes people want to use older compilers (like with
>>>> Julia).
>>>
>>> I agree.
>>>
>>> @Roel: I see that this patch hasn’t been pushed yet.  Is there anything
>>> missing or was it just forgotten?
>>
>> I think the idea was to upgrade, instead of have this newer version next
>> to the current version.  The upgrade involves a lot of rebuilding, and I
>> am stuck at compiling 'dub' with 3.9.1.
>>
>> If we can instead apply this patch as (having both 3.8.1 and 3.9.1), we
>> can push it, and after that add the darktable patch as well.
>
> I think it’s fine to have multiple versions of LLVM + Clang around,
> especially considering that in my experience many dependent projects
> won’t build with later versions without adjustments.  (RStudio, for
> example, still insists on the oldest version of Clang that we offer, and
> it crashes with later versions.)
>
> It would be good to keep an eye on this, though, to make sure that we
> don’t provide outdated versions that have no users and no maintainer.

So, is it OK to push the patch as-is then?

Kind regards,
Roel Janssen

Message #43 received at 25879 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>
To: Roel Janssen <roel <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 25879 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Pjotr Prins <pjotr.public12 <at> thebird.nl>,
 Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: bug#25879: [PATCH] gnu: Add LLVM and CLANG 3.9.1.
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 12:23:25 +0200

Roel Janssen <roel <at> gnu.org> writes:

> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>
>> Roel Janssen <roel <at> gnu.org> writes:
>>
>>> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>>>
>>>> Pjotr Prins <pjotr.public12 <at> thebird.nl> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 09:06:28PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>>>>>> > Well, actually, this is just the latest release, so maybe I should
>>>>>> > update the 3.8.1 recipe to3.9.1 instead.  WDYT?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the other users of LLVM and Clang (as per ‘guix refresh -l llvm’) can
>>>>>> cope with it, upgrading sounds better indeed.  Could you check if that
>>>>>> is the case?
>>>>>
>>>>> With LLVM it is probably a good idea to keep the major versions as
>>>>> packages tend to lag after latest. Many compiler writers are a bit
>>>>> behind and sometimes people want to use older compilers (like with
>>>>> Julia).
>>>>
>>>> I agree.
>>>>
>>>> @Roel: I see that this patch hasn’t been pushed yet.  Is there anything
>>>> missing or was it just forgotten?
>>>
>>> I think the idea was to upgrade, instead of have this newer version next
>>> to the current version.  The upgrade involves a lot of rebuilding, and I
>>> am stuck at compiling 'dub' with 3.9.1.
>>>
>>> If we can instead apply this patch as (having both 3.8.1 and 3.9.1), we
>>> can push it, and after that add the darktable patch as well.
>>
>> I think it’s fine to have multiple versions of LLVM + Clang around,
>> especially considering that in my experience many dependent projects
>> won’t build with later versions without adjustments.  (RStudio, for
>> example, still insists on the oldest version of Clang that we offer, and
>> it crashes with later versions.)
>>
>> It would be good to keep an eye on this, though, to make sure that we
>> don’t provide outdated versions that have no users and no maintainer.
>
> So, is it OK to push the patch as-is then?

Yes, please!  :)

If you can, it would be good to investigate if current users of 3.8
could be built with 3.9, but this doesn’t have to block this patch in my
opinion.

If in fact all users of 3.8 can be built with 3.9 without problems you
can make the change in a follow-up commit.

--
Ricardo

GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6  2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC
https://elephly.net

Message #46 received at 25879 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Roel Janssen <roel <at> gnu.org>
To: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>
Cc: 25879 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Pjotr Prins <pjotr.public12 <at> thebird.nl>,
 Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: bug#25879: [PATCH] gnu: Add LLVM and CLANG 3.9.1.
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 15:44:58 +0200

Ricardo Wurmus writes:

> Roel Janssen <roel <at> gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>>
>>> Roel Janssen <roel <at> gnu.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Pjotr Prins <pjotr.public12 <at> thebird.nl> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 09:06:28PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>>>>>>> > Well, actually, this is just the latest release, so maybe I should
>>>>>>> > update the 3.8.1 recipe to3.9.1 instead.  WDYT?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the other users of LLVM and Clang (as per ‘guix refresh -l llvm’) can
>>>>>>> cope with it, upgrading sounds better indeed.  Could you check if that
>>>>>>> is the case?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With LLVM it is probably a good idea to keep the major versions as
>>>>>> packages tend to lag after latest. Many compiler writers are a bit
>>>>>> behind and sometimes people want to use older compilers (like with
>>>>>> Julia).
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree.
>>>>>
>>>>> @Roel: I see that this patch hasn’t been pushed yet.  Is there anything
>>>>> missing or was it just forgotten?
>>>>
>>>> I think the idea was to upgrade, instead of have this newer version next
>>>> to the current version.  The upgrade involves a lot of rebuilding, and I
>>>> am stuck at compiling 'dub' with 3.9.1.
>>>>
>>>> If we can instead apply this patch as (having both 3.8.1 and 3.9.1), we
>>>> can push it, and after that add the darktable patch as well.
>>>
>>> I think it’s fine to have multiple versions of LLVM + Clang around,
>>> especially considering that in my experience many dependent projects
>>> won’t build with later versions without adjustments.  (RStudio, for
>>> example, still insists on the oldest version of Clang that we offer, and
>>> it crashes with later versions.)
>>>
>>> It would be good to keep an eye on this, though, to make sure that we
>>> don’t provide outdated versions that have no users and no maintainer.
>>
>> So, is it OK to push the patch as-is then?
>
> Yes, please!  :)

Pushed in 584da12dc71da745edb13bf748e832b77a0193d7.

> If you can, it would be good to investigate if current users of 3.8
> could be built with 3.9, but this doesn’t have to block this patch in my
> opinion.
>
> If in fact all users of 3.8 can be built with 3.9 without problems you
> can make the change in a follow-up commit.

I am sure that at least 'c-reduce' does not build with 3.9.1.  So I
think we'll need to take this on a per-program basis.  I'll see which
ones can be built with 3.9.1.

Thanks!

Kind regards,
Roel Janssen

Message #51 received at 25879-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>
To: Roel Janssen <roel <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 25879-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Pjotr Prins <pjotr.public12 <at> thebird.nl>,
 Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: bug#25879: [PATCH] gnu: Add LLVM and CLANG 3.9.1.
Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 15:54:44 +0200

Roel Janssen <roel <at> gnu.org> writes:

>>> So, is it OK to push the patch as-is then?
>>
>> Yes, please!  :)
>
> Pushed in 584da12dc71da745edb13bf748e832b77a0193d7.

Great!  Closing this bug.

>> If you can, it would be good to investigate if current users of 3.8
>> could be built with 3.9, but this doesn’t have to block this patch in my
>> opinion.
>>
>> If in fact all users of 3.8 can be built with 3.9 without problems you
>> can make the change in a follow-up commit.
>
> I am sure that at least 'c-reduce' does not build with 3.9.1.  So I
> think we'll need to take this on a per-program basis.  I'll see which
> ones can be built with 3.9.1.

Thanks for taking care of this!

-- 
Ricardo

GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6  2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC
https://elephly.net

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.