On 29/10/2022 22.35, Piotr Karbowski wrote:
On 29/10/2022 21.01, Matt Turner wrote:
lld isn't a dependency of llvm; it's the same reason why llvm:N
doesn't depend on clang:N.
That's fair. Still a bit of a bummer that we cannot guarantee a
frictionless support for clang-based kernels, in a
On 29/10/2022 21.01, Matt Turner wrote:
lld isn't a dependency of llvm; it's the same reason why llvm:N
doesn't depend on clang:N.
That's fair. Still a bit of a bummer that we cannot guarantee a
frictionless support for clang-based kernels, in a sense that your
system could pull new update
On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 12:53 PM Piotr Karbowski wrote:
>
> On 29/10/2022 18.22, Matt Turner wrote:
> > Have you seen these commits?
>
> I did not, thanks. Seems like the solution. Is there a reason why llvm:N
> do not pull in lld:N in that case?
lld isn't a dependency of llvm; it's the same
On 29/10/2022 18.22, Matt Turner wrote:
Have you seen these commits?
I did not, thanks. Seems like the solution. Is there a reason why llvm:N
do not pull in lld:N in that case?
-- Piotr.
On Sat, Oct 29, 2022 at 12:01 PM Piotr Karbowski wrote:
> The state for this very moment is that we can have many versions of llvm
> around, however we can at most have only one ld.lld installed. Usually
> matching the lowest version of clang installed.
Have you seen these commits?
commit
