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.