Skip to content

Update linker-plugin-lto.md #90243

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

Update linker-plugin-lto.md #90243

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

Takashiidobe
Copy link
Contributor

The script provided doesn't have a clang LLVM version provided for Rust 1.49.0 or 1.50.0. Does anyone know why that might be?

The script provided doesn't have a clang LLVM version provided for Rust 1.49.0 or 1.50.0. Does anyone know why that might be?
@rust-highfive
Copy link
Contributor

r? @GuillaumeGomez

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Oct 24, 2021
@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member

r? @pnkfelix

@GuillaumeGomez GuillaumeGomez added the T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. label Oct 25, 2021
@pnkfelix
Copy link
Member

We discussed this table in a recent T-compiler meeting, see zulip archive here

At that meeting, some made the observation that extending this table implies we are actively testing it, e.g. in our CI. But we are not actively testing it

I think our current plan is to shrink the table with a few example entries, rather than try to maintain it. In theory, one should be able to follow the instructions written in the doc to get the info one needs locally, namely this:

One can use rustc -vV in order to view the LLVM used by a given rustc version. Note that the version number given here is only an approximation as Rust sometimes uses unstable revisions of LLVM. However, the approximation is usually reliable.

@Takashiidobe
Copy link
Contributor Author

That makes sense to me. I would be fine with a comment above this table in the code linking the above reasoning and in the future shrinking the table.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants