From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed May 10 09:45:24 2017 Received: (at 25879) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 May 2017 13:45:24 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35222 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d8Rvg-0001d0-Bv for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 10 May 2017 09:45:24 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:52276) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d8Rvd-0001cj-08 for 25879@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 10 May 2017 09:45:21 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d8RvW-0003RT-Kj for 25879@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 10 May 2017 09:45:15 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:59803) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d8RvP-0003MC-9F; Wed, 10 May 2017 09:45:07 -0400 Received: from ip-80-113-14-101.ip.prioritytelecom.net ([80.113.14.101]:35519 helo=antelope) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1d8RvO-00054E-De; Wed, 10 May 2017 09:45:06 -0400 References: <87shn12p2i.fsf@gnu.org> <87k28180ob.fsf@gnu.org> <87d1dskjdh.fsf@gnu.org> <8737eosvgb.fsf@gnu.org> <20170307212411.GA29363@mail.thebird.nl> <87bmr1i6l3.fsf@elephly.net> <87inl9gpvu.fsf@gnu.org> <877f1phvox.fsf@elephly.net> <874lwthuxu.fsf@elephly.net> User-agent: mu4e 0.9.18; emacs 25.1.1 From: Roel Janssen To: Ricardo Wurmus Subject: Re: bug#25879: [PATCH] gnu: Add LLVM and CLANG 3.9.1. In-reply-to: <874lwthuxu.fsf@elephly.net> Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 15:44:58 +0200 Message-ID: <87wp9okeqt.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 25879 Cc: 25879@debbugs.gnu.org, Pjotr Prins , Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8?= =?utf-8?Q?s?= X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) Ricardo Wurmus writes: > Roel Janssen writes: > >> Ricardo Wurmus writes: >> >>> Roel Janssen writes: >>> >>>> Ricardo Wurmus writes: >>>> >>>>> Pjotr Prins writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 09:06:28PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >>>>>>> > Well, actually, this is just the latest release, so maybe I should >>>>>>> > update the 3.8.1 recipe to3.9.1 instead. WDYT? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If the other users of LLVM and Clang (as per ‘guix refresh -l llvm’) can >>>>>>> cope with it, upgrading sounds better indeed. Could you check if that >>>>>>> is the case? >>>>>> >>>>>> With LLVM it is probably a good idea to keep the major versions as >>>>>> packages tend to lag after latest. Many compiler writers are a bit >>>>>> behind and sometimes people want to use older compilers (like with >>>>>> Julia). >>>>> >>>>> I agree. >>>>> >>>>> @Roel: I see that this patch hasn’t been pushed yet. Is there anything >>>>> missing or was it just forgotten? >>>> >>>> I think the idea was to upgrade, instead of have this newer version next >>>> to the current version. The upgrade involves a lot of rebuilding, and I >>>> am stuck at compiling 'dub' with 3.9.1. >>>> >>>> If we can instead apply this patch as (having both 3.8.1 and 3.9.1), we >>>> can push it, and after that add the darktable patch as well. >>> >>> I think it’s fine to have multiple versions of LLVM + Clang around, >>> especially considering that in my experience many dependent projects >>> won’t build with later versions without adjustments. (RStudio, for >>> example, still insists on the oldest version of Clang that we offer, and >>> it crashes with later versions.) >>> >>> It would be good to keep an eye on this, though, to make sure that we >>> don’t provide outdated versions that have no users and no maintainer. >> >> So, is it OK to push the patch as-is then? > > Yes, please! :) Pushed in 584da12dc71da745edb13bf748e832b77a0193d7. > If you can, it would be good to investigate if current users of 3.8 > could be built with 3.9, but this doesn’t have to block this patch in my > opinion. > > If in fact all users of 3.8 can be built with 3.9 without problems you > can make the change in a follow-up commit. I am sure that at least 'c-reduce' does not build with 3.9.1. So I think we'll need to take this on a per-program basis. I'll see which ones can be built with 3.9.1. Thanks! Kind regards, Roel Janssen