Re: llvm update to 20.1.8

Thomas Klausner <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.os.netbsd.devel.packages
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Hi!

Another update: adam fixed mlir, unmasking flang.

Now only lldb and flang are broken.

https://www.netbsd.org/~wiz/llvm-20.7.diff

(This llvm version is needed for updating rust, btw.)

Comments?
 Thomas

On Sat, Feb 21, 2026 at 12:01:05PM +0100, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> I've updated the diff - ccls was updated in the meantime, and I've
> reduced the differences to the current pkgsrc state and restored one
> Solaris patch.
> 
> https://www.netbsd.org/~wiz/llvm-20.6.diff
> 
> Testing welcome.
> 
> Thanks,
>  Thomas
> 
> 
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 01:41:20AM +0100, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> > Hi!
> > 
> > I've worked on an update for llvm & all related packages to 20.1.8, as
> > well as some other packages that needed build fixes for the new llvm
> > version. The update is based on adam's work up to commit
> > 1f701ceffc8429f61d994f9cb829b4c07e4f4bf4 in wip (wip is already
> > tracking llvm 21) with additional fixes.
> > 
> > This llvm update allow upgrading zig (included) and rust (not
> > included) to newer versions.
> > 
> > I've tested bulk-test-llvm (including rust, zig, firefox and
> > thunderbird) on NetBSD 11.99.5/x86_64, and it built except for two
> > packages:
> > 
> > mlir:
> > 
> > fails, not finding libMLIR.* - reported upstream at
> > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/181584
> > 
> > lldb:
> > 
> > fails in the NetBSD specific code - reported upstream at
> > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/181586
> > 
> > lldb is a leaf packages (except for the bulk test package), mlir is
> > used by flang.
> > 
> > I'd like to go ahead with the update anyway so we can get newer rust &
> > zig.
> > 
> > The update is here[1]:
> > 
> > https://www.netbsd.org/~wiz/llvm-20.5.diff
> > 
> > Please review & test, and if you have ideas for fixes for the two
> > problems listed above, I'd appreciate it.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> >  Thomas
> > 
> > 
> > [1] The update is not in wip because wip is not well suited for this
> > use case (you could install the packages from there, but the
> > dependencies in the standard pkgsrc tree would have to be manually
> > changed to point to wip for bulk builds to succeed) - pkgsrc branches
> > would be better.
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.