| 23 Aug 2025 |
 John Ericson | can they key off -march and whatnot too? | 01:00:31 |
 emily | have you read the docs for the configuration files? they key on both target and language | 01:00:32 |
| emily | I don't think so, but our wrappers also don't do that | 01:00:42 |
| John Ericson | (other ways of doing target in effect?) | 01:00:43 |
| emily | -march is separate from the target | 01:00:54 |
| John Ericson | yeah I was thinking about how there was that PR for hacking multi arch in CC wrapper for buildingl inux | 01:01:03 |
| emily |
| 01:01:11 |
| emily | Note that options such as --driver-mode=, --target=, -m32 affect the search algorithm. For example, the aforementioned executable called with -m32 argument will instead search for:
| 01:01:13 |
| emily | *
Note that options such as --driver-mode=, --target=, -m32 affect the search algorithm. For example, the aforementioned executable called with -m32 argument will instead search for:
| 01:01:15 |
| emily | https://clang.llvm.org/docs/UsersManual.html#configuration-files | 01:01:18 |
| John Ericson | ok cool | 01:01:25 |
| John Ericson | I guess whoever made the multilib yaml didn't know about this :D | 01:02:29 |
| emily | I think it's specifically for configuring the GCC multilib interface | 01:05:42 |
| emily | but yeah, some overlap | 01:06:02 |
| emily | maybe the multilib stuff could be useful, it seems a little baroque though | 01:06:11 |
| John Ericson | yeah all I want is the conceptual parts | 02:21:56 |
| John Ericson | -print-multi-lib itself is only for building GCC with --enable-multilib, and the whole point of GCC NG is you get the benefits from that without needing to do that | 02:22:32 |
| John Ericson | so...nope! not needed! | 02:22:37 |
| emily | we kind of want multilib to kill off i686-linux builds | 02:25:14 |
| emily | but that's another matter | 02:25:18 |
| 24 Aug 2025 |
 ris_ | rebased & retested https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/414987 today - would be nice to get this & the clang equivalent into 25.11 | 19:38:03 |
| emily | does anyone know if there is a particular reason we pass env.NIX_CFLAGS_COMPILE etc. down to Fortran compilers | 22:41:22 |
| emily | https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/27218 https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/436510 | 22:41:35 |
| 27 Aug 2025 |
|  connor (burnt/out) (UTC-8) changed their display name from connor (he/him) (UTC-7) to connor (he/him) (UTC+1). | 18:33:42 |
| 28 Aug 2025 |
 Philip Taron (UTC-8) | You're a committer, right? | 22:36:11 |
| ris_ | yup, will look back at this tomorrow | 22:36:50 |
| 29 Aug 2025 |
|  陈浩南 changed their profile picture. | 05:06:54 |
|  dish [Fox/It/She] joined the room. | 13:45:08 |
|  Sigmanificient joined the room. | 18:57:16 |
 j-k | dish [Fox/It/She]: I think this is one of the last minimal boostrap discussions I recall seeing. (In-case you're interested) | 19:25:12 |
