Re: Update on rustc/clang goodness

Le 04/06/2018 à 08:50, Henri Sivonen a écrit : > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 5:16 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: >> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 02:40:01PM +0300, Henri Sivonen wrote: >>> The Linux distro case is >>> trickier than Mozilla's compiler choice. For CPUs that are tier-3 for >>> Mozilla, we already

Re: Update on rustc/clang goodness

On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 5:16 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 02:40:01PM +0300, Henri Sivonen wrote: >> The Linux distro case is >> trickier than Mozilla's compiler choice. For CPUs that are tier-3 for >> Mozilla, we already tolerate less great performance attributes in >> order

Re: Update on rustc/clang goodness

On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 5:02 PM, Anthony Jones wrote: > On Thursday, 31 May 2018 02:44:51 UTC+12, Tom Ritter wrote: > > Oh. Are we doing this rustc inlining development on a particular old > > version of clang? I'm not even close to getting CFI ready but I'm > > basically working off llvm

Re: Update on rustc/clang goodness

On Thursday, 31 May 2018 02:44:51 UTC+12, Tom Ritter wrote: > Oh. Are we doing this rustc inlining development on a particular old > version of clang? I'm not even close to getting CFI ready but I'm > basically working off llvm trunk as I'm finding and filing llvm bugs > and working with llvm

Re: Update on rustc/clang goodness

On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 2:16 PM, Mike Hommey wrote: > I'm sure the day we'll have to choose between not > doing cross-language inlining or upgrading clang for e.g. security > features is relatively close. Oh. Are we doing this rustc inlining development on a particular old version of clang?

Re: Update on rustc/clang goodness

On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 02:40:01PM +0300, Henri Sivonen wrote: > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 8:06 AM, Dave Townsend wrote: > > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 10:03 PM Jeff Gilbert wrote: > >> I get that, but it reminds me of the reasons people give for "our > >> website works best in $browser". > > > > I

Re: Update on rustc/clang goodness

We've also been running Windows code coverage builds with clang on CI for a while (since December), with almost all tests. - Marco. On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 2:35:57 AM UTC+2, Anthony Jones wrote: > You may already know that the Low-Level Tools team support important tools > and code

Re: Update on rustc/clang goodness

On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 8:06 AM, Dave Townsend wrote: > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 10:03 PM Jeff Gilbert wrote: >> I get that, but it reminds me of the reasons people give for "our >> website works best in $browser". > > I was concerned by this too but found myself swayed by the arguments in >

Re: Update on rustc/clang goodness

On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 10:03 PM Jeff Gilbert wrote: > I get that, but it reminds me of the reasons people give for "our > website works best in $browser". > I was concerned by this too but found myself swayed by the arguments in

Re: Update on rustc/clang goodness

I get that, but it reminds me of the reasons people give for "our website works best in $browser". There are also other less-obvious benefits where having multiple backends can illuminate bugs and deviations from standards, as well as having another set of warnings and static analysis passes.

Re: Update on rustc/clang goodness

On Wednesday, 30 May 2018 08:48:12 UTC+12, Jeff Gilbert wrote: > It would be sad to see us standardize on a clang monoculture. It pays not to be sentimental about tools. We get better practicality and productivity by focusing on clang. Using the same compiler across all platforms means that we

Re: Update on rustc/clang goodness

On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 09:19:29AM +1000, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 7:58 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote: > > > > > MSVC is a separate beast. It is a great compiler. > > > > FWIW: numerous times I have been stymied by MSVC's bugs or lack of > features. Bug 1449787 is a recent

Re: Update on rustc/clang goodness

On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 7:58 AM, Gregory Szorc wrote: > > MSVC is a separate beast. It is a great compiler. > FWIW: numerous times I have been stymied by MSVC's bugs or lack of features. Bug 1449787 is a recent example. Nick ___ dev-platform mailing

Re: Update on rustc/clang goodness

On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 1:48 PM, Jeff Gilbert wrote: > It would be sad to see us standardize on a clang monoculture. > I am sympathetic to that concern. (I have similar monoculture fears that the open source world is over-pivoting towards non-OSS platforms like GitHub and Slack as well.) We

Re: Update on rustc/clang goodness

On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 8:48 PM, Jeff Gilbert wrote: > It would be sad to see us standardize on a clang monoculture. I wouldn't want us to abandon msvc and gcc as well-supported compilers; but from just one perspective (security) it would be very advantageous to have a single open source

Re: Update on rustc/clang goodness

It would be sad to see us standardize on a clang monoculture. On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 7:56 PM, Anthony Jones wrote: > You may already know that the Low-Level Tools team support important tools > and code infrastructure. Lately we’ve also been improving our rustc/clang > (LLVM) story and I’d like

Update on rustc/clang goodness

You may already know that the Low-Level Tools team support important tools and code infrastructure. Lately we’ve also been improving our rustc/clang (LLVM) story and I’d like bring everyone up to date. There are a lot of important and interesting things going on:

Re: Update on rustc/clang goodness

Recently I found myself using the mozbuild-supplied clang for compiling Gecko on Linux (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1451312). It works just peachily for me, and I find myself liking their error message decorators better than gcc's. Since we supply a compiler during bootstrap, it

Re: Update on rustc/clang goodness

We've confirmed that this issue with debug symbols comes from lld-link and not from clang-cl. This will likely need a fix from the LLVM side, but in the meantime I'd like to encourage people not to be deterred from using clang-cl as your compiler. On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 9:12 PM Xidorn Quan

Re: Update on rustc/clang goodness

On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:35 PM, Anthony Jones wrote: > You may already know that the Low-Level Tools team support important tools > and code infrastructure. Lately we’ve also been improving our rustc/clang > (LLVM) story and I’d like bring everyone up to date. > > There are

Re: Update on rustc/clang goodness

On 5/11/18 12:16 PM, Anthony Jones wrote: On Friday, 11 May 2018 21:14:21 UTC+12, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: Do we have a list of blockers (or meta bug) to make the switch on Linux? We're already using clang for ASAN builds on Linux and passing tests. We'll want to switch to clang on Linux

Re: Update on rustc/clang goodness

Hello, Bravo for all this work. Having a single opensource toolchain would be a great gain for us! On 11/05/2018 02:35, Anthony Jones wrote: > You may already know that the Low-Level Tools team support important tools > and code infrastructure. Lately we’ve also been improving our rustc/clang

Re: Update on rustc/clang goodness

On Fri, May 11, 2018, at 10:35 AM, Anthony Jones wrote: > I have some specific requests for you: > > Let me know if you have specific Firefox related cases where Rust is > slowing you down (thanks Jeff [7]) > Cross language inlining is coming - avoid duplication between Rust > and C++

Update on rustc/clang goodness

You may already know that the Low-Level Tools team support important tools and code infrastructure. Lately we’ve also been improving our rustc/clang (LLVM) story and I’d like bring everyone up to date. There are a lot of important and interesting things going on: * Michael Woerister and