From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: Re: [PATCH]:Resend: Add LLVM, clang and clang-runtime-3.8 to GNU Guix
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 18:30:31 +0200
Message-ID: <8737oimkt4.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <87vb1yjj2u.fsf@gnu.org> <20160610163849.GA4631@thebird.nl>
	<CAKKYfmFaPikjowX2m0gm3qc9CL+nPMWuB2kEB5aBfb8z+GTw7A@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57205)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1bC8Hc-0003Yv-96
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 12 Jun 2016 12:30:45 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1bC8Ha-0006yd-0N
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 12 Jun 2016 12:30:43 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAKKYfmFaPikjowX2m0gm3qc9CL+nPMWuB2kEB5aBfb8z+GTw7A@mail.gmail.com>
	(Dennis Mungai's message of "Sun, 12 Jun 2016 13:17:57 +0300")
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Dennis Mungai <dmngaie@gmail.com>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, Guix-devel <guix-devel-bounces+ericbavier=openmailbox.org@gnu.org>

Hi!

Dennis Mungai <dmngaie@gmail.com> skribis:

> I second Pjotr on this.
>
> There are always tools that will lag behind, and having multiple LLVM
> versions is a reasonable (and possibly unavoidable) compromise, for
> now.
>
> There may be problems with conflicts should a user install such
> pipelines with differing LLVM and Clang combinations within the same
> profile, as a worst case scenario.

OK fine.  Currently we have 3.6 and 3.5, so we=E2=80=99d add 3.8 on top of =
it,
right?  And the =E2=80=98llvm=E2=80=99, =E2=80=98clang=E2=80=99 etc. bindin=
gs would still point to 3.6?
Does it even make sense to have unversioned bindings?

The patch you posted earlier adds a number of configure flags, different
from those currently used in =E2=80=98llvm=E2=80=99, and in particular:

> +                           "-DLLVM_INCLUDE_TESTS=3DOFF" ;; clang target =
units cannot be built (invalid test targets inherited from llvm result in b=
uild failure)

IIUC, this has the effect of disabling tests, which is something we
avoid unless there=E2=80=99s a good reason.  I don=E2=80=99t understand the=
 comment,
what=E2=80=99s happening?

Could you remove as many of the configure flags as needed, and add a
comment for those that need to remain?

Also, as a bonus, could you add a conforming commit log?  :-)

  https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/manual/html_node/Submitting-Patches.html

Thanks in advance!

Ludo=E2=80=99.