On 2025/09/05 19:55, Brandon Mercer wrote: > > 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?
would be beneficial, I don't know whether it's possible. we could at least set 16 to ONLY_FOR_ARCHS=aarch64, which is built on fadt machines anyway. > > 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? the point is that base includes 19, but misses many of the tools. we should have matching tools for the version in base. > > 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. I see that, but how important is it to have zig 0.15 instead of 0.14? > The work for zig 16 has already built the > dependency on llvm 21. skipping over llvm 20 and going straight to 21 would generally seem not a bad idea as far as the ports tree and bulk builds goes. > 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. that's a period that will include release builds. > 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 >
