Nixpkgs Stdenv | 220 Members | |
| 70 Servers |
| Sender | Message | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 30 Apr 2025 | ||
It doesn't look like an exhausive list of either gcc features or /proc/cpuinfo | 15:03:42 | |
Also what is the difference between lib.systems.platforms and lib.systems.examples? Why is armv7a-android in platforms while aarch64-android in examples? | 15:59:36 | |
| 1 May 2025 | ||
| 20:09:28 | ||
| 3 May 2025 | ||
| Any thoughts on changing the target check to treat arm64-apple-darwin and arm64-apple-macosxY.X as equivalent? Swift and SwiftPM heavily use the latter. It’s apparently the way that setting the deployment target is done. | 17:06:05 | |
| I think we have to pick one | 17:09:21 | |
| Assuming I'm correctly understanding what you mean by "target check"? | 17:10:12 | |
The one that spams lots of warnings when you clang-wrapper -target <some triple>, and the triple is different from what the wrapper was built for. | 17:11:16 | |
| Oh that sounds fine | 17:11:46 | |
| Assuming LLVM treats them the same | 17:12:00 | |
You can change the deployment target a bunch of different ways. The way Swift does it (and when invoking Clang) is via the triple. The wrapper tries to set the target via -mmacos-version-min=. I think there’s another way it can also fall back to do. | 17:12:03 | |
| So maybe Darwin can settle on following Swift’s lead and consolidate all those. Probably a 25.11 thing. | 17:12:38 | |
| It would also fix the following warnings when SwiftPM invokes Clang.
| 17:14:42 | |
| * It would also fix the following warnings when SwiftPM invokes Clang.
| 17:15:07 | |
| 4 May 2025 | ||
| Two PRs aiming to fix "cross compilation" between different march https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/403549 https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/403960 | 07:08:19 | |
| Randy Eckenrode: Hey there, Darwin question for you. ponyc does this and we have to patch: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/pkgs/by-name/po/ponyc/fix-darwin-build.patch However, hydra is complaining about: ld: warning: directory not found for option '-L/nix/store/6fg11q5s4xpgfpvps1hy7w9vjhfl14mx-Libsystem-11.0/lib' Feel like I'm just missing something stupid here. | 21:58:08 | |
Don’t use darwin.Libsystem. It’s an empty stub with nothing in it. It’s scheduled for removal too. If you need to find the location of libSystem.tbd, it’s in $SDKROOT/usr/lib. | 22:00:16 | |
| Gotcha, that explains it | 22:01:12 | |
| Thanks, I'll give that a shot | 22:01:27 | |
| Aha, solved it. Thank you | 23:38:43 | |
| 9 May 2025 | ||
| Wait, does this make sense? https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/907e98d6cc08e3261b63e3f8d2831841817b0041/pkgs/build-support/bintools-wrapper/ld-wrapper.sh#L84-L95
An oversight, I presume? I just hit it with a bit of confusion as to why my override was not having effect in a static build (where the link type is set). It also looks to me like any tests should be using $linkType, per https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/907e98d6cc08e3261b63e3f8d2831841817b0041/pkgs/build-support/bintools-wrapper/ld-wrapper.sh#L32 | 06:01:05 | |
| * Wait, does this make sense? https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/907e98d6cc08e3261b63e3f8d2831841817b0041/pkgs/build-support/bintools-wrapper/ld-wrapper.sh#L84-L95
An oversight, I presume? I just hit it with a bit of confusion as to why my override was not having effect in a static build (where the link type is set). It also looks to me like any tests should be using $linkType, per https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/907e98d6cc08e3261b63e3f8d2831841817b0041/pkgs/build-support/bintools-wrapper/ld-wrapper.sh#L32 | 06:01:27 | |
| * Wait, does this make sense? https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/907e98d6cc08e3261b63e3f8d2831841817b0041/pkgs/build-support/bintools-wrapper/ld-wrapper.sh#L84-L95
An oversight, I presume? I just hit it with a bit of confusion as to why my override was not having effect in a static build (where the link type is set). It also looks to me like any tests should be using $linkType, per https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/907e98d6cc08e3261b63e3f8d2831841817b0041/pkgs/build-support/bintools-wrapper/ld-wrapper.sh#L32 | 06:01:35 | |
It looks to me like the second condition ($linkType == dynamic) doesn't especially make sense to be gated by if [ -z "${NIX_LINK_TYPE_@suffixSalt@:-}" ], so it doesn't belong nested in that conditional. And I don't see a good reason to gate the availability of 'NIX_LDFLAGS_*` on the link type. | 06:03:34 | |
| * Wait, does this make sense? https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/907e98d6cc08e3261b63e3f8d2831841817b0041/pkgs/build-support/bintools-wrapper/ld-wrapper.sh#L84-L95
An oversight, I presume? I just hit it with a bit of confusion as to why my override was not having effect in a static build (where the link type is set to static, but $NIX_LINK_TYPE is empty). It also looks to me like any tests should be using $linkType, per https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/907e98d6cc08e3261b63e3f8d2831841817b0041/pkgs/build-support/bintools-wrapper/ld-wrapper.sh#L32 | 06:04:24 | |
| Oh, meanwhile, NIX_LDFLAGS_BEFORE are also handled in the cc-wrapper, and added as -Wl, to add to the confusion. And the actual reason my flags weren't taking effect was because I had the wrong suffixSalt in effect. | 06:17:29 | |
| 10 May 2025 | ||
| I'm messing with my own stdenvStages as an experiment and to learn about the stdenv. I've hit upon a fun problem. If I add my own stage which makes use of a suffixed compiler from an earlier stage, the wrapped compiler is suffixed but the unwrapped compiler is not. This line: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/1a5bd697adecf27385b69352485baa52a6e02fe9/pkgs/build-support/cc-wrapper/setup-hook.sh#L93 Ends up putting the $CC_FOR_BUILD's unwrapped compiler in the $PATH before the host compiler. So This works fine for most standard scenarios, I think, because normally you'd be using some native (and unsuffixed) compiler as $CC_FOR_BUILD (=gcc) and the $CC would be set to some suffixed compiler. So if Not sure exactly how to solve it; I don't yet see why you'd want the unwrapped compiler in the path at all. | 12:05:51 | |
| * I'm messing with my own stdenvStages as an experiment and to learn about the stdenv. I've hit upon a fun problem. If I add my own stage which makes use of a suffixed compiler from an earlier stage, the wrapped compiler is suffixed but the unwrapped compiler is not. This line: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/1a5bd697adecf27385b69352485baa52a6e02fe9/pkgs/build-support/cc-wrapper/setup-hook.sh#L93 Ends up putting the $CC_FOR_BUILD's unwrapped compiler in the $PATH before the host compiler. So This works fine for most standard scenarios, I think, because normally you'd be using some native (and unsuffixed) compiler as $CC_FOR_BUILD (=gcc) and the $CC would be set to some suffixed compiler. So if Not sure exactly how to solve it; I don't yet see why you'd want the unwrapped compiler in the path at all. | 12:06:16 | |
| * I'm messing with my own stdenvStages as an experiment and to learn about the stdenv. I've hit upon a fun problem. If I add my own stage which makes use of a target-prefixed compiler from an earlier stage, the wrapped compiler is prefixed but the unwrapped compiler is not. This line: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/1a5bd697adecf27385b69352485baa52a6e02fe9/pkgs/build-support/cc-wrapper/setup-hook.sh#L93 Ends up putting the $CC_FOR_BUILD's unwrapped compiler in the $PATH before the host compiler. So This works fine for most standard scenarios, I think, because normally you'd be using some native (and unprefixed) compiler as $CC_FOR_BUILD (=gcc) and the $CC would be set to some prefixed compiler. So if Not sure exactly how to solve it; I don't yet see why you'd want the unwrapped compiler in the path at all. | 12:12:50 | |
| 11 May 2025 | ||
| Ideally wrappers should always expose prefixed binaries. | 14:34:59 | |
| (like abandoned https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/181724) | 14:35:49 | |