Havard Eidnes <h...@netbsd.org> writes: > I've looked at > > ftp://nyftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD-daily/HEAD-llvm/latest/amd64/binary/sets/ > > and specifically the base.tar.xz file, and it doesn't look like it has > libgcc_s at all, but apparently MKGCC=yes will build it, but that > doesn't appear to be the default (which is probably intentional). > > So ... what should I/we do about this? Do we need a separate rust > bootstrap kit built with clang and built with a clang-built "target > root"? It looks like there's no netbsd-9 nor netbsd-10 built with > clang, only HEAD?
Basically binary packages are built for some environment, and you then can't change the environment and expect them to work. So yes, for NetBSD with LLVM and not GCC, I think we need different bootstraps, and that's work to generate and awkward to implement. I don't think you should feel any duty to accomodate this, which I say even if I'm a clang fan. The big question to me is if a system with HAVE_LLVM can also build with MKGCC. The wiki says no: https://wiki.netbsd.org/tutorials/clang/ but that was likely adopted by me from list traffic and may be wrong. I am unclear on whether NetBSD which 1) builds clang and 2) uses clang to build the system can sanely also have GCC available, and whether we should turn that on in public builds. That's a bigger question than rust, surely. The real issue is that it's a bug that rust needs binary bootstraps, and that there's no path from source with a base system. This is exacerbated by the rust.org implementation's practice of reuquiring the previous rust version. But other than the eventual gcc, and maybe mrustc, I don't see that getting fixed, since they seem to view the current situation as ok.
