| 2 Jun 2025 |
 sterni (he/him) | surely the ld.bfd bug that was plaguing haskell has been fixed by now? | 12:11:55 |
 Teo (he/him) | I think the big issue with ld.bfd is that it is horribly slow | 12:12:16 |
| Teo (he/him) | At least given the huge object files that GHC outputs | 12:12:51 |
| sterni (he/him) | that's true | 12:13:06 |
| sterni (he/him) | but are we sure that a mix of lld and ld.bfd across nixpkgs can play nice with C++ libs? | 12:13:27 |
| Teo (he/him) | Yeah I'm not sure. Maybe the "correct" thing to do is just use lld consistently as the linker | 12:13:58 |
| Teo (he/him) | I guess then you want to use clang as well? Otherwise you don't get LTO(?) I don't know how C/C++ linker stuff works | 12:15:02 |
 emily | mixing linkers is fine | 12:18:43 |
| emily | but we probably won't want to use a different linker just for Haskell unless we need to | 12:18:56 |
| emily | OTOH both ld.gold and ld.bfd sort of suck for Linux to be on so maybe someone should make LLD happen system-wide :P | 12:19:23 |
| emily | (then again, I'd say the same about GCC vs. LLVM) | 12:19:35 |
| Teo (he/him) | The other thing is GHC supports using a different linker to what it was built with, but I'm not sure if it's worthwhile making use of that. You'd have to split it into a bindist derivation and an installed GHC derivation. It would save building GHC n times though | 12:21:31 |
| sterni (he/him) | emily: it's probably better to use lld over ld.gold longterm, but we'd have to check first how bad ld.bfd is nowadays | 12:43:43 |
| sterni (he/him) | I wonder if GHC's configure script still rejects ld.bfd… | 12:44:12 |
| Teo (he/him) | I'd be keen to just make it an opt-in thing for now, and then at some point in the future we can make it the default if we want | 12:49:44 |
 Alex | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org
OTOH both ld.gold and ld.bfd sort of suck for Linux to be on so maybe someone should make LLD happen system-wide :P I've found mold to be even better than lld.
But it doesn't (didn't?) support the weird things GHC does. :( | 18:24:42 |
 alexfmpe | wth is going on with git-annex | 20:28:53 |
| alexfmpe | every lts bump invalides its hash | 20:29:01 |
 maralorn | Well, that’s on purpose. peti left an excellent comment there. 😄 | 20:32:36 |
| maralorn |
The Hackage tarball is purposefully broken, because it's not intended to be, like, useful.
| 20:33:06 |
| maralorn | Makes me smile everytime I read it. 😄 | 20:33:15 |
| alexfmpe | can we, like, shame upstream into doing something different? | 20:54:44 |
| sterni (he/him) | hm did wolfgang talk to anyone before the warnIf change? | 21:28:42 |
| sterni (he/him) | the PR is pretty much what I wanted to do myself, but it's a pretty self merge in any case | 21:29:05 |
| sterni (he/him) | maybe he has telepathic abilities :) | 21:29:13 |
| maralorn | I know of nothing. 😄 | 21:41:40 |
| maralorn | Sooo … what would an empty queue roughly look like? I guess 50k builds waiting for staging-next is not it? 😄 | 22:44:26 |
| sterni (he/him) | that's a question | 22:45:17 |
| sterni (he/him) | I mean we can probably eval, we share most GHCs with staging-next | 22:45:35 |
| sterni (he/him) | if it's a problem someone can always cancel an eval | 22:45:43 |
