| 12 Jan 2026 |
 Alyssa Ross | wow, nice! | 15:41:03 |
 aleksi | Yes, the pieces seem to be coming together (: | 16:21:29 |
 Grimmauld (any/all) | i do wonder how hard it would be to just implement tinyCC in pure nix... | 16:39:34 |
 dish [Fox/It/She] | i would like to not implement a compiler in nix, that doesnt sound fun | 19:15:43 |
| dish [Fox/It/She] | also then we'd have to bootstrap nix with nix so... fun problem | 19:16:01 |
 Sergei Zimmerman (xokdvium) | If WASM derivations become a thing hypothetically you could "just" compile it | 19:19:08 |
| Sergei Zimmerman (xokdvium) | "just" does the heavy lifting here, but I'd hope it wouldn't be too bad | 19:19:31 |
 Sigmanificient | In reply to @grimmauld:m.grimmauld.de
i do wonder how hard it would be to just implement tinyCC in pure nix... UGH that sounds hardcore | 20:31:12 |
| Sigmanificient | tinyCC not so tiny, that is like 100k lines of code | 20:32:03 |
| 4 Aug 2022 |
|  Winter (she/her) joined the room. | 03:27:09 |
|  [0x4A6F] joined the room. | 22:08:01 |
| 6 Aug 2022 |
| Winter (she/her) | Does anyone know where the fact that the Darwin stdenv builds CMake twice comes from? As far as I can tell, it's from stage 0, and then just gets used in the other stages from there. Am I missing something here, is it something with the overrides? It looks like it might be, but then the fact that those are only allowed in the final stage (per booter.nix) (when that doesn't seem true, since then they wouldn't be defined...?) comes up.
(Isn't this the same pattern (defining in one stage and referencing in the others) that makes Glibc only build a limited number of times in the Linux stdenv?) | 08:00:17 |
 trofi | You think cmake should be rebuild less? Or more?
glibc's is probably a bit different as it's a part of stdenv.cc.libc and mainly used by that I would guess. Also, if depends if the package is used or not by other packages in the derivation would affect rebuild count as well.
| 14:59:09 |
| trofi | Looking at stdenv's dep tree I see 2 cmake-boot hashes and one cmake hash: https://dpaste.com/8GGM6P9BF.txt | 15:03:11 |
| Winter (she/her) | In reply to @trofi:matrix.org
You think cmake should be rebuild less? Or more?
glibc's is probably a bit different as it's a part of stdenv.cc.libc and mainly used by that I would guess. Also, if depends if the package is used or not by other packages in the derivation would affect rebuild count as well.
I have no particular opinion, I'm just curious how that happens. | 21:22:09 |
| Winter (she/her) | Oh, for clarification, I was talking about cmake-boot. | 21:22:19 |
| Winter (she/her) | (which is cmake in the stdenv stages) | 21:22:29 |
| Winter (she/her) | see the line i linked | 21:22:36 |
| trofi | AFAIU cmake = cmakeMinimal is only for stage1-4 (first build: bootstrapTools -> cmake-boot in pastebin). Last stage uses cmake as is. Also note that cmakeMinimal is used by zstd (used by final stage, does second build: stage4 -> cmake-boot -> zstd in pastebin). | 21:44:31 |
| trofi | I used the following command to grep through the full depgraph: $ nix-store --query --graph $(nix-instantiate -A stdenv --argstr system x86_64-darwin) | 21:45:39 |
| 10 Aug 2022 |
|  luxus joined the room. | 09:55:36 |
| 17 Aug 2022 |
| trofi | Quiz question: for a final glibc used in nixpkgs all over the place which gcc you think is used to build it on linux? a) Possible answers: gcc from bootstrap tools b) gcc from nixpkgs. | 17:36:21 |
| trofi | You knew :) | 17:39:09 |
 Artturin | obviously it is the more ridiculous answer 🙃 | 17:40:03 |
| trofi | Yeah :) Spoiler: https://dpaste.com/DMD34BUN9.txt | 17:40:23 |
| trofi | * Quiz question: for a final glibc used in nixpkgs all over the place which gcc you think is used to build it on linux? Possible answers: a) gcc from bootstrap tools b) gcc from nixpkgs. | 17:42:06 |
 vcunat | AFAIK it isn't easy to do better. gcc links against glibc. So either somehow try replacing it later (rather hacky, probably) or build gcc twice during bootstrapping (will remain persistently annoying). Or as you suggest, update the bootstrapping tools more often. | 17:49:27 |
| vcunat | I might've missed some options. Or perhaps even confuse something. | 17:49:48 |
| vcunat | * I might've missed some options. Or perhaps even confused something. | 17:49:52 |
| vcunat | * AFAIK it isn't easy to do better. gcc links against glibc. So either somehow try replacing gcc's glibc later (rather hacky, probably) or build gcc twice during bootstrapping (will remain persistently annoying). Or as you suggest, update the bootstrapping tools more often. | 17:50:20 |
