On Fri, Sep 05, 2025 at 11:27:59PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2025/09/05 16:36, Sebastien Marie wrote: > > Brandon Mercer <bmer...@eutonian.com> writes: > > > > > This brings zig up to the current 0.15.1 release. It's been tested on > > > amd64 and arm64. In conversation with Sebastian, he suggested that I > > > take maintainership of this since I'm using it regularly. > > > > > > OK? > > > bmercer@ > > > > The diff is ok semarie@ > > > > But I would like wider audience regarding using devel/llvm/20: > > - for lang/zig it is a requirement of 0.15.* > > - devel/llvm/20 has currently no customer (it isn't even linked to the > > build) > > > > So it means we are going back to build 3 differents llvm versions. > > ...or 4, when 21 starts to be used... > > > sthen@, naddy@, what is your opinion about it ? > > On 2025/09/05 12:01, Brandon Mercer wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 5, 2025, at 10:36 AM, Sebastien Marie wrote: > > > Brandon Mercer <bmer...@eutonian.com> writes: > > > > > > > This brings zig up to the current 0.15.1 release. It's been tested on > > > > amd64 and arm64. In conversation with Sebastian, he suggested that I > > > > take maintainership of this since I'm using it regularly. > > > > > > > > OK? > > > > bmercer@ > > > > > > The diff is ok semarie@ > > > > > > But I would like wider audience regarding using devel/llvm/20: > > > - for lang/zig it is a requirement of 0.15.* > > > - devel/llvm/20 has currently no customer (it isn't even linked to the > > > build) > > > > > > So it means we are going back to build 3 differents llvm versions. > > > > > > sthen@, naddy@, what is your opinion about it ? > > > > Thank you for reviewing this, Sebastien, > > > > It is really unfortunate to require a 3rd llvm version to be built. On my > > "fast" arm64 machine llvm takes 4-5 hours, (amd64 seems to be 30-45 > > minutes?) so that is a significant time to replicate. Would it be helpful > > for me to test the ports that require llvm-19 and see if they still compile > > and work with llvm-20? Short of that I do not think it makes sense to build > > a third version of llvm for a single port. > > 19 is a bit special because it's the same as the version in base, but > has the extra pieces which we don't/can't include in base. So I think > that probably warrants keeping. > > Looking at the last bulk builds, times are roughly > > amd64 2 hours > aarch64 3.5 hours > i386 5.5 hours > mips64 7.5 hours > sparc64 11 hours > powerpc 48 hours > armv7 112 hours > > current status of the versions > > 16 used only for mozillas on aarch64
Is it possible or benefitial to do the work to port the mozillas away from the llvm 16 dependency so we can do away with this "older" one? > 19 used for loads of things If the above isn't practical, how about migrating the other apps that use 19 to 20 or 21? > 20 unused/unlinked for now > 21 unused/unlinked for now > > how important is it to have zig 0.15? would it be too painful to stick > with 0.14 and llvm/19 until either there's a version using llvm/21 if > that gets linked to the build, or we can kill off llvm/16? > zig 15 requires llvm 20. The work for zig 16 has already built the dependency on llvm 21. Since I am likely one of the only/few people actively using it, and it is under constant development it is a moving target at best. On one hand we would likely only depend on 20 for a few months for the zig 15 release, on the other hand it ties up our ports builders for a while for very little benefit. I'm happy to track these diffs in my own tree. Once zig 1.0 lands this will slow down a bunch and I would ask at that point we satisfy the llvm requirement even if we do have to build a couple. Cheers
