On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 10:57:03PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il> skribis:
> 
> > On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 10:38:06PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> >> Then it should be declared in a module that’s not in a cycle with its
> >> users (that’s annoying!).  Maybe a separate ‘llvm-meta.scm’?
> >
> > How about moving it into (guix cpu) together with the ones from gcc?
> > There are apparently some CPUs that are identical but have different
> > names that we could map together and would allow us to make any changes
> > to them in one place.  We've already pretty much done that with the
> > search paths.
> 
> To me, the whole point of the ‘compiler-cpu-architectures’ property is
> that this info can be stored in the compiler package itself rather than
> in some remote unrelated place (the same goes for search paths).  My
> instinct would be to preserve that, hence the suggestion of a new (gnu
> packages llvm-meta) or (… llvm-infra) module, something like that.
> 
> We should also keep in mind that those CPU names are those defined by
> compilers themselves; they don’t have to match the vendor-chosen name or
> the name chosen by some other compiler.
> 
> WDYT?  Does that make sense?

That makes sense to me. I'm also going to look at moving
system->llvm-target to llvm-meta.  I think its used with dlang.scm and
maybe elsewhere, or could be used at least.  All these languages using
llvm as a backend means we keep on wanting to use these functions
elsewhere.

-- 
Efraim Flashner   <efraim@flashner.co.il>   רנשלפ םירפא
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D  14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted