On Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 03:00:32PM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote: > I haven't looked deeply into this, bit for armhf using GDC is the intended > choice - it has way fewer bugs than LDC,
If binaries compiled by ldc simply do not work on armhf, maybe you should consider to restrict archs in ldc package and remove armhf from the list[1]? [1]: https://sources.debian.org/src/ldc/1%3A1.29.0-2/debian/control/#L44 > which generally seems to work better on 64bit architectures. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Why is the `default-d-compiler' on i386 "ldc" then? > That's why this was changed in the past (so > at least of stuff compiles with gdc, the resulting binary will work). Admittedly, I got really confused looking at the code in dlang-flags, since it contains an if condition that's essentially a no-op, and it felt like you missed adding it. I did a git blame and dug a bit into the commits. The relevant commit where you removed armhf from that list said "restrict archs to supported ones" while in practice, ldc supports armhf[1] If removing armhf was intentional/right, please consider to clarify this in the code a bit, or maybe please provide a README.Debian, or atleast remove the no-op? > I'm currently traveling, so I'll look at this issue properly later. Sure. -- Best, Nilesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
