| 15 Nov 2024 |
 emily | instead you have to deal with GCC. | 09:12:50 |
 p14 | Well there is that. | 09:12:56 |
| p14 | I've got a moment to mess with this and send a patch to drop the patch unless you want the fun. Will let you know if I have to give up for some reason. | 09:14:08 |
| p14 | I have a handful of trivial patches outstanding which would be nice to not let languish until I forget about them: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pulls/pwaller | 09:15:07 |
| emily | would be happy to review :) | 09:15:44 |
| p14 | The failures mentioned in https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/354471 raise my eyebrows a bit, not sure what's going on there. | 09:15:45 |
| emily | I've been having too much LLVM fun myself already lately: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/354107 | 09:16:13 |
| emily | should be landing in staging soon | 09:16:19 |
| emily | plan is to update LLVM for Darwin and other platforms in lockstep in future | 09:16:59 |
| emily | which should be very good for LLVM in general, because we're the only ones building most of the package set with it | 09:17:12 |
| p14 | Very cool to have gotten things into this state. | 09:17:13 |
| p14 | It (the state of nixpkgs generally and the llvm side specifically) is a seriously impressive thing. | 09:17:55 |
| p14 | Would be nice if more stuff built happily out of the box with clang. | 09:18:03 |
| emily | the more we take an upstream-first approach the more the ecosystem will move in that direction :) | 09:18:24 |
| emily | I'd rather Linux was using LLVM personally! | 09:18:39 |
 @paparodeo:matrix.org | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org
I've been having too much LLVM fun myself already lately: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/354107 eh I broke eval on that one -- will fix. | 09:19:39 |
| emily | In reply to @p14:matrix.org
The failures mentioned in https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/354471 raise my eyebrows a bit, not sure what's going on there. should maybe just send this to staging so you can do the --replace-fail thing? | 09:19:46 |
| p14 | I mean, I could also do replace-fail in a separate patch. | 09:20:04 |
| emily | sure :) | 09:20:09 |
| p14 | But it's only a warning right now so not especially motivated to fix a single package. | 09:20:22 |
| p14 | Though, is this the kind of thing that can even be done treewide? :hmm: | 09:20:39 |
| emily | that was just being talked about in the dev room | 09:21:41 |
| p14 | Failing at first hurdle here emily - I was under the impression nostdinc was somehow conditioned on the target, or that darwin had a fix for it somehow, but I see it unconditionally here: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/52bf1163fadb7ee5e21ee0b8e5cf266acb3e74e9/pkgs/development/compilers/llvm/common/default.nix#L533 | 09:21:52 |
| emily | I think yes as long as the people who do it actually show up to the staging-next cycle to fix everything | 09:22:00 |
| emily | because there'll be a lot to fix | 09:22:05 |
| emily | In reply to @p14:matrix.org
Failing at first hurdle here emily - I was under the impression nostdinc was somehow conditioned on the target, or that darwin had a fix for it somehow, but I see it unconditionally here: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/52bf1163fadb7ee5e21ee0b8e5cf266acb3e74e9/pkgs/development/compilers/llvm/common/default.nix#L533 that commit is before the staging-next merge from ~yesterday | 09:22:51 |
| emily | which is where I added the conditional | 09:22:56 |
| emily | (to unbreak Darwin stuff) | 09:23:01 |
| p14 | Gotcha. | 09:23:03 |
| emily | FWIW, the condition is Darwin host and Darwin target, but we can probably relax that to Darwin target. | 09:23:21 |
