On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 05:40:19PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 5:26 PM Conor Dooley conor@kernel.org wrote:
Yes, but unfortunately I already knew how it worked. It's not flags I am worried about, it is extensions. Even using a libclang that doesn't match clang could be a problem, but we can at least declare that unsupported. Not digging it out on an airport bus, but we discussed the lack of GCC support on the original patch adding riscv, and decided against it.
Do you mean you would prefer to avoid supporting the mixed GCC-Clang builds?
Mixed builds are allowed on the c side, since we can figure out what the versions of each tool are. If there's a way to detect the version of libclang in use by the rust side, then I would be okay with mixed gcc + rustc builds.
If so, do you mean you would prefer to not pick the patch, i.e. avoid supporting this at all?
Yes, I would rather this was not applied at all. My plan was to send a patch making HAVE_RUST depend on CC_IS_CLANG, but just ain't got around to it yet, partly cos I was kinda hoping to mention this to you guys at LPC last week, but I never got the chance to talk to any rust people (or go to any rust talks either!).
(If so, then perhaps it would be a good idea to add a comment there and perhaps a note to https://docs.kernel.org/rust/arch-support.html).
Sure, I can add a comment there.
Otherwise, please let me know if I am misunderstanding -- thanks!
In sorta related news, is there a plan for config "options" that will allow us to detect gcc-rs or the gcc rust backend?
Cheers, Conor.