| 1 Nov 2025 |
 emily | I'm saying maybe you can just stay on the happy path of using LLVM 21 if you work around the bug or we revert its cause locally | 17:07:07 |
 Ihar Hrachyshka | oh if I were to know the cause... | 17:07:38 |
| Ihar Hrachyshka | for now I'm just waiting for mozilla folks who are now looking into it to come back with a fix. then we will probably know if we have a path with llvm21. | 17:08:20 |
| emily | have you tried bisecting? shouldn't take too long | 17:08:47 |
| Ihar Hrachyshka | bisecting whom? llvm? | 17:08:57 |
| emily | yeah | 17:09:38 |
| emily | we have a known good and known bad version | 17:09:45 |
| Ihar Hrachyshka | I am not sure about "shouldn't take too long" :D but maybe I'm missing something. AFAIU it means rebuilding the world a bunch of times. | 17:10:25 |
| emily | not the world. just LLVM, Rust, Firefox | 17:10:33 |
| emily | which sure, take a long time, but bisect is O(log n). | 17:10:41 |
| emily | so if you've built a handful of Firefoxes already you're well on the way to the total time it'd take to just find the problematic commit. | 17:10:54 |
| emily | which is going to be required for any long-term solution | 17:11:00 |
