bug#25879: [PATCH] gnu: Add LLVM and CLANG 3.9.1.

bug#25879: [PATCH] gnu: Add LLVM and CLANG 3.9.1.

[Ricardo Wurmus]

Pjotr Prins <pjotr.public12@thebird.nl> 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?

--
Ricardo

GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6  2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC
https://elephly.net

bug#25879: [PATCH] gnu: Add LLVM and CLANG 3.9.1.

[Roel Janssen]

Ricardo Wurmus writes:

> Pjotr Prins <pjotr.public12@thebird.nl> 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.

Kind regards,
Roel Janssen

bug#25879: [PATCH] gnu: Add LLVM and CLANG 3.9.1.

[Ricardo Wurmus]

Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org> writes:

> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>
>> Pjotr Prins <pjotr.public12@thebird.nl> 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.

--
Ricardo

GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6  2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC
https://elephly.net

bug#25879: [PATCH] gnu: Add LLVM and CLANG 3.9.1.

[Roel Janssen]

Ricardo Wurmus writes:

> Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>>
>>> Pjotr Prins <pjotr.public12@thebird.nl> 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?

Kind regards,
Roel Janssen

bug#25879: [PATCH] gnu: Add LLVM and CLANG 3.9.1.

[Ricardo Wurmus]

Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org> writes:

> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>
>> Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org> writes:
>>
>>> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>>>
>>>> Pjotr Prins <pjotr.public12@thebird.nl> 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!  :)

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.

--
Ricardo

GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6  2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC
https://elephly.net

bug#25879: [PATCH] gnu: Add LLVM and CLANG 3.9.1.

[Roel Janssen]

Ricardo Wurmus writes:

> Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>>
>>> Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Pjotr Prins <pjotr.public12@thebird.nl> 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

bug#25879: [PATCH] gnu: Add LLVM and CLANG 3.9.1.

[Ricardo Wurmus]

Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org> writes:

>>> So, is it OK to push the patch as-is then?
>>
>> Yes, please!  :)
>
> Pushed in 584da12dc71da745edb13bf748e832b77a0193d7.

Great!  Closing this bug.

>> 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 for taking care of this!

-- 
Ricardo

GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6  2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC
https://elephly.net