Re: GCC/Rust libgrust-v2/to-submit branch
Hi Arthur, Pierre-Emmanuel! On 2023-12-12T10:39:50+0100, I wrote: > On 2023-11-27T16:46:08+0100, I wrote: >> On 2023-11-21T16:20:22+0100, Arthur Cohen wrote: >>> On 11/20/23 15:55, Thomas Schwinge wrote: >>>> Arthur and Pierre-Emmanuel have prepared a GCC/Rust libgrust-v2/to-submit >>>> branch: <https://github.com/Rust-GCC/gccrs/tree/libgrust-v2/to-submit>. > Rebasing onto current master branch, there's a minor (textual) conflict > in top-level 'configure.ac:host_libs': 'intl' replaced by 'gettext', and > top-level 'configure' plus 'gcc/configure' have to be re-generated (the > latter for some unrelated changes in line numbers). Otherwise, those > initial libgrust changes are now in the form that I thought they should > be in -- so I suggest you fix that up (I can quickly have a look again, > if you like) I've noticed that you've fix that up (looks good), but I also noticed one additional small item: into "build: Add libgrust as compilation modules", you'll have to add the effect of top-level 'autogen Makefile.def' (that is, regenerate the top-level 'Makefile.in'). Grüße Thomas > and then you do the "scary" 'git push' ;-) -- and then: > >>> All the best, and thanks again for testing :) >> >> :-) So I hope I've not missed any major issues... > > ..., we wait and see. :-) > > > Grüße > Thomas - Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstraße 201, 80634 München; Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung; Geschäftsführer: Thomas Heurung, Frank Thürauf; Sitz der Gesellschaft: München; Registergericht München, HRB 106955
Re: GCC/Rust libgrust-v2/to-submit branch
Hi Arthur, Pierre-Emmanuel! On 2023-11-27T16:46:08+0100, I wrote: > On 2023-11-21T16:20:22+0100, Arthur Cohen wrote: >> On 11/20/23 15:55, Thomas Schwinge wrote: >>> Arthur and Pierre-Emmanuel have prepared a GCC/Rust libgrust-v2/to-submit >>> branch: <https://github.com/Rust-GCC/gccrs/tree/libgrust-v2/to-submit>. ..., and now updated once again. >>> In that one, most of the issues raised have been addressed, and which >>> I've now successfully "tested" in my different GCC configurations, >>> requiring just one additional change (see end of this email). I'm using >>> "tested" in quotes here, as libgrust currently is still missing its >>> eventual content, and still is without actual users, so we may still be >>> up for surprises later on. ;-) >>> Then, still should re-order the commits [...] > So I suggest: > > - "libgrust: Add entry for maintainers and stub changelog file" > - "libgrust: Add libproc_macro and build system" > ... plus 'autoreconf' in 'libgrust/' folded in. > ... plus 'contrib/gcc_update' update moved here. > - "build: Add libgrust as compilation modules" > ... plus "Disable target libgrust if missing libstdc++" folded in. > ... plus 'autoreconf' and 'autogen'in '/' folded in. > - "Regenerate build files" then evaporates. That's now been done, thanks. Rebasing onto current master branch, there's a minor (textual) conflict in top-level 'configure.ac:host_libs': 'intl' replaced by 'gettext', and top-level 'configure' plus 'gcc/configure' have to be re-generated (the latter for some unrelated changes in line numbers). Otherwise, those initial libgrust changes are now in the form that I thought they should be in -- so I suggest you fix that up (I can quickly have a look again, if you like), and then you do the "scary" 'git push' ;-) -- and then: >> All the best, and thanks again for testing :) > > :-) So I hope I've not missed any major issues... ..., we wait and see. :-) Grüße Thomas - Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstraße 201, 80634 München; Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung; Geschäftsführer: Thomas Heurung, Frank Thürauf; Sitz der Gesellschaft: München; Registergericht München, HRB 106955
Re: GCC/Rust libgrust-v2/to-submit branch
Hi! On 2023-11-21T16:20:22+0100, Arthur Cohen wrote: > A newer version of the library has been force-pushed to the branch > `libgrust-v2/to-submit`. > On 11/20/23 15:55, Thomas Schwinge wrote: >> Arthur and Pierre-Emmanuel have prepared a GCC/Rust libgrust-v2/to-submit >> branch: <https://github.com/Rust-GCC/gccrs/tree/libgrust-v2/to-submit>. >> In that one, most of the issues raised have been addressed, and which >> I've now successfully "tested" in my different GCC configurations, >> requiring just one additional change (see end of this email). I'm using >> "tested" in quotes here, as libgrust currently is still missing its >> eventual content, and still is without actual users, so we may still be >> up for surprises later on. ;-) >> On 2023-10-27T22:41:52+0200, I wrote: >>> On 2023-09-27T00:25:16+0200, I wrote: >>>> don't we also directly need to >>>> incorporate here a few GCC/Rust master branch follow-on commits, like: >>>> >>>>- commit 171ea4e2b3e202067c50f9c206974fbe1da691c0 "fixup: Fix bootstrap >>>> build" >>>>- commit 61cbe201029658c32e5c360823b9a1a17d21b03c "fixup: Fix missing >>>> build dependency" >>> >>> I've not yet run into the need for these two. Let's please leave these >>> out of the upstream submission for now, until we understand what exactly >>> these are necessary for. >> >> (Still the same.) > > Do you mean that we should remove the content of these commits from the > submission? If so, I believe it's now done. That's correct. My theory is that "fixup: Fix bootstrap build" can be dropped altogether (that is, reverted on GCC/Rust master branch; I'll look into that, later), and "fixup: Fix missing build dependency" will be necessary once the GCC/Rust front end links against libgrust (that is, will then move into that commit). >>> However: >>> >>>>- commit 6a8b207b9ef7f9038e0cae7766117428783825d8 "libgrust: Add >>>> dependency to libstdc++" >>> >>> ... this one definitely is necessary right now; see discussion in >>> <https://inbox.sourceware.org/8734xv24dd@euler.schwinge.homeip.net> >>> "Disable target libgrust if we're not building target libstdc++". >> >> This one still isn't in the GCC/Rust libgrust-v2/to-submit branch -- but >> having now tested that branch, I'm now no longer seeing the respective >> build failure. Isn't that change "libgrust: Add dependency to libstdc++" >> still necessary, conceptually? (Maybe we're just lucky, currently?) >> I'll be sure to re-test in my different GCC configurations once libgrust >> gains actual content and use. (..., which might then re-expose the >> original problem?) So I guess I really just was lucky in my testing, because: later I actually again did run into the need for that commit, so: > This commit was integrated into another one: > > fb31093105e build: Add libgrust as compilation modules > > (on libgrust-v2/to-submit as of 2 minutes ago) ACK. >>>>> --- a/gcc/rust/config-lang.in >>>>> +++ b/gcc/rust/config-lang.in >>>> >>>>> +target_libs="target-libffi target-libbacktrace target-libgrust" >>>> >>>> Please don't add back 'target-libffi' and 'target-libbacktrace' here; >>>> just 'target-libgrust'. (As is present in GCC/Rust master branch, and >>>> per commit 7411eca498beb13729cc2acec77e68250940aa81 >>>> "Rust: Don't depend on unused 'target-libffi', 'target-libbacktrace'".) >>> >>> ... that change is necessary, too. >> >> That's still unchanged in the GCC/Rust libgrust-v2/to-submit branch; >> please apply to 'gcc/rust/config-lang.in': >> >> -target_libs="target-libffi target-libbacktrace target-libgrust" >> +target_libs=target-libgrust (That's now been addressed, too.) >> Then, still should re-order the commits so that (re)generation of >> auto-generated files comes before use of libgrust (so that later >> bisection doesn't break), and move the 'contrib/gcc_update' update into >> the commit that adds the auto-generated files. > > Do you mean that the regeneration should happen before the commit adding > the proc_macro library? Or that when we keep going and adding more > commits on top of this, we need to make sure the regeneration commit > happens before any code starts using/depending on libgrust/? My point is: once the 'gcc/rust/config-lang.in' changes appear (when a 'git bisect' tests commit "buil
Re: GCC/Rust libgrust-v2/to-submit branch
Hi Thomas! A newer version of the library has been force-pushed to the branch `libgrust-v2/to-submit`. On 11/20/23 15:55, Thomas Schwinge wrote: Hi! Arthur and Pierre-Emmanuel have prepared a GCC/Rust libgrust-v2/to-submit branch: <https://github.com/Rust-GCC/gccrs/tree/libgrust-v2/to-submit>. In that one, most of the issues raised have been addressed, and which I've now successfully "tested" in my different GCC configurations, requiring just one additional change (see end of this email). I'm using "tested" in quotes here, as libgrust currently is still missing its eventual content, and still is without actual users, so we may still be up for surprises later on. ;-) On 2023-10-27T22:41:52+0200, I wrote: On 2023-09-27T00:25:16+0200, I wrote: don't we also directly need to incorporate here a few GCC/Rust master branch follow-on commits, like: - commit 171ea4e2b3e202067c50f9c206974fbe1da691c0 "fixup: Fix bootstrap build" - commit 61cbe201029658c32e5c360823b9a1a17d21b03c "fixup: Fix missing build dependency" I've not yet run into the need for these two. Let's please leave these out of the upstream submission for now, until we understand what exactly these are necessary for. (Still the same.) Do you mean that we should remove the content of these commits from the submission? If so, I believe it's now done. However: - commit 6a8b207b9ef7f9038e0cae7766117428783825d8 "libgrust: Add dependency to libstdc++" ... this one definitely is necessary right now; see discussion in <https://inbox.sourceware.org/8734xv24dd@euler.schwinge.homeip.net> "Disable target libgrust if we're not building target libstdc++". This one still isn't in the GCC/Rust libgrust-v2/to-submit branch -- but having now tested that branch, I'm now no longer seeing the respective build failure. Isn't that change "libgrust: Add dependency to libstdc++" still necessary, conceptually? (Maybe we're just lucky, currently?) I'll be sure to re-test in my different GCC configurations once libgrust gains actual content and use. (..., which might then re-expose the original problem?) This commit was integrated into another one: fb31093105e build: Add libgrust as compilation modules (on libgrust-v2/to-submit as of 2 minutes ago) And: (Not sure if all of these are necessary and/or if that's the complete list; haven't looked up the corresponding GCC/Rust GitHub PRs.) --- a/gcc/rust/config-lang.in +++ b/gcc/rust/config-lang.in +target_libs="target-libffi target-libbacktrace target-libgrust" Please don't add back 'target-libffi' and 'target-libbacktrace' here; just 'target-libgrust'. (As is present in GCC/Rust master branch, and per commit 7411eca498beb13729cc2acec77e68250940aa81 "Rust: Don't depend on unused 'target-libffi', 'target-libbacktrace'".) ... that change is necessary, too. That's still unchanged in the GCC/Rust libgrust-v2/to-submit branch; please apply to 'gcc/rust/config-lang.in': -target_libs="target-libffi target-libbacktrace target-libgrust" +target_libs=target-libgrust Then, still should re-order the commits so that (re)generation of auto-generated files comes before use of libgrust (so that later bisection doesn't break), and move the 'contrib/gcc_update' update into the commit that adds the auto-generated files. Do you mean that the regeneration should happen before the commit adding the proc_macro library? Or that when we keep going and adding more commits on top of this, we need to make sure the regeneration commit happens before any code starts using/depending on libgrust/? And alright, we'll move the changes to contrib/gcc_update into the regeneration commit. All the best, and thanks again for testing :) Arthur Grüße Thomas - Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstraße 201, 80634 München; Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung; Geschäftsführer: Thomas Heurung, Frank Thürauf; Sitz der Gesellschaft: München; Registergericht München, HRB 106955
GCC/Rust libgrust-v2/to-submit branch (was: [PATCH 2/3] build: Add libgrust as compilation modules)
Hi! Arthur and Pierre-Emmanuel have prepared a GCC/Rust libgrust-v2/to-submit branch: <https://github.com/Rust-GCC/gccrs/tree/libgrust-v2/to-submit>. In that one, most of the issues raised have been addressed, and which I've now successfully "tested" in my different GCC configurations, requiring just one additional change (see end of this email). I'm using "tested" in quotes here, as libgrust currently is still missing its eventual content, and still is without actual users, so we may still be up for surprises later on. ;-) On 2023-10-27T22:41:52+0200, I wrote: > On 2023-09-27T00:25:16+0200, I wrote: >> don't we also directly need to >> incorporate here a few GCC/Rust master branch follow-on commits, like: >> >> - commit 171ea4e2b3e202067c50f9c206974fbe1da691c0 "fixup: Fix bootstrap >> build" >> - commit 61cbe201029658c32e5c360823b9a1a17d21b03c "fixup: Fix missing >> build dependency" > > I've not yet run into the need for these two. Let's please leave these > out of the upstream submission for now, until we understand what exactly > these are necessary for. (Still the same.) > However: > >> - commit 6a8b207b9ef7f9038e0cae7766117428783825d8 "libgrust: Add >> dependency to libstdc++" > > ... this one definitely is necessary right now; see discussion in > <https://inbox.sourceware.org/8734xv24dd....@euler.schwinge.homeip.net> > "Disable target libgrust if we're not building target libstdc++". This one still isn't in the GCC/Rust libgrust-v2/to-submit branch -- but having now tested that branch, I'm now no longer seeing the respective build failure. Isn't that change "libgrust: Add dependency to libstdc++" still necessary, conceptually? (Maybe we're just lucky, currently?) I'll be sure to re-test in my different GCC configurations once libgrust gains actual content and use. (..., which might then re-expose the original problem?) > And: > >> (Not sure if all of these are necessary and/or if that's the complete >> list; haven't looked up the corresponding GCC/Rust GitHub PRs.) >> >>> --- a/gcc/rust/config-lang.in >>> +++ b/gcc/rust/config-lang.in >> >>> +target_libs="target-libffi target-libbacktrace target-libgrust" >> >> Please don't add back 'target-libffi' and 'target-libbacktrace' here; >> just 'target-libgrust'. (As is present in GCC/Rust master branch, and >> per commit 7411eca498beb13729cc2acec77e68250940aa81 >> "Rust: Don't depend on unused 'target-libffi', 'target-libbacktrace'".) > > ... that change is necessary, too. That's still unchanged in the GCC/Rust libgrust-v2/to-submit branch; please apply to 'gcc/rust/config-lang.in': -target_libs="target-libffi target-libbacktrace target-libgrust" +target_libs=target-libgrust Then, still should re-order the commits so that (re)generation of auto-generated files comes before use of libgrust (so that later bisection doesn't break), and move the 'contrib/gcc_update' update into the commit that adds the auto-generated files. Grüße Thomas - Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstraße 201, 80634 München; Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung; Geschäftsführer: Thomas Heurung, Frank Thürauf; Sitz der Gesellschaft: München; Registergericht München, HRB 106955
