[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240118-implode-delirium-eefdd86e170e@spud>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2024 15:49:21 +0000
From: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...il.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
llvm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] RISC-V: enable rust
On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 07:23:17PM +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 12:31 PM Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > 6.6 came and went, and I have been busy dealing with the other
> > responsibilities I mentioned and have not had a chance to look here.
> > I rebased this today and things still work as they did when I submitted
> > this version, but things have gotten muddier on the LLVM side of things,
> > as more recent versions have added yet more extension support.
>
> Sounds fun :)
>
> > My inclination at this point is to engage in a bit of LARPing as an
> > ostrich, and sorta ignore these concerns initially. Specifically, I'd
> > like to drop the idea of having the gcc support, and restrict to LLVM=1.
>
> Yeah, if `LLVM=1` works, then I would suggest going ahead with that.
>
> (Now that `rustc_codegen_gcc` is here, we will move to that and forget
> about mixed compiler builds, but we still have to handle `bindgen`
> flags until we have an alternative for that)
The bit that worries me most is bindgen, and in particular detecting the
version of libclang used. I mentioned to Nathan or Nick about needing a
buildtime test for the version of LIBCLANG being used.
I'm less worried about this for LLVM=1 builds, since while I think it is
possible to provide a LIBCLANG path to the build system, I suspect that
for LLVM=1 builds it's almost always going to match the LLVM toolchain
in use.
> > When it comes to asymmetrical extension support between the C and Rust
> > toolchains, I'm think we deal with that as we do for the C toolchains,
> > sort issues out as-and-when they arrive rather than punt this again.
>
> Sounds good, thanks a lot!
I'll do another rebase and resend after the merge window closes I
suppose :)
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (229 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists