| 19 May 2025 |
 emily | it'll also make GCC uglier and more annoying, which will be a great argument for switching to LLVM | 13:43:48 |
 K900 | No, pkgsTargetTarget is [host = target, target = target] | 13:46:26 |
| K900 | And in our current world host == target for packages that don't have target | 13:46:53 |
| emily | yes but we're talking about build = | 13:47:24 |
| emily | oh | 13:47:30 |
| emily | sorry I misread the package set you were talking about | 13:47:34 |
| emily | then I'm confused, isn't this just pkgsBuildTarget | 13:47:49 |
| emily | which we use a fair bit | 13:48:02 |
| K900 | Yes but it doesn't exist on Canadian cross | 13:48:26 |
| emily | I mean, it can, right? you just have to build another compiler | 13:49:48 |
| K900 | Well yes but that kinda defeats the point of Canadian cross | 13:51:02 |
| emily | is there a point of Canadian cross? | 13:52:30 |
| K900 | Yes, the point of Canadian cross is that you use your slow build machine to build a cross-compiler for a fast host machine | 13:53:19 |
| K900 | And then use that cross-compiler to build packages for target | 13:53:27 |
| K900 | But faster | 13:53:31 |
| emily | you could just build the compiler on the fast host machine. | 13:55:33 |
| emily | to me the sensible use-case for Canadian cross looks like "we can only get x86 CI, not AArch64, but we want to offer AArch64 binaries of our compiler for various targets" | 13:56:23 |
