On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 12:48:38AM +0100, Uwe Düffert via blfs-dev wrote: > Hi all, > > On Fri, 27 Mar 2020, Ken Moffat via blfs-dev wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 10:09:49AM -0500, Douglas R. Reno via blfs-dev > > wrote: > > > > On 3/27/20 9:24 AM, Pierre Labastie via blfs-dev wrote: > > > > Just built cmake 1.17, llvm 10.0? and trying rustc-1.39. Got an error > > > It seems that using system LLVM is broken with rustc-1.39. > > For the *second* step, we need to think abou moving to rustc-1.42.0. > FYI: I built rustc-1.42 without issues about a week ago (with llvm-9.0.1) as > well as just now (with llvm-10.0 and no instruction changes). > > librsvg-2.48.0, gimp-2.10.18 and firefox-75.0b10 build and run fine with > that (llvm-10.0, rustc-1.42, ...) for me. > > Is there any special reason we would want to upgrade llvm but not rustc? > Both are rather ugly packages with pretty long pretty similar build times, > but recent rustc versions are available way longer than the recent llvm one. > I'd even expect rustc to be easier to upgrade due to fewer stuff to test!? > > Uwe
Hi Uwe, for 'fewer stuff to test' I don't think very much has yet been tested with llvm-10.0, other than rustc-1.39.0 which was found wanting ;-) I'm glad to hear that librsvg and ff75.0b10 build with 1.42.0. But 1.42.0 needs to be built and measured, and the packages using rust build-tested. Seamonkey will definitely need patching. Meanwhile, I've now got the measurements for 1.39.0, and I was surprised to notice that one more test passed instead of being ignored. I'll create tickets, and then update rustc-1.39.0 to use its shipped llvm as a temporary response to the build breakage. ĸen -- When alle is ſayed and all is done, ye must chooſe your faces wisely, for soon enouff ye will be playing with fyre." The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Prophecy 5004 -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
