Re: [PATCH 1/2] README: bump minimum required clang/llvm version

["Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@citrix.com>]

On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 02:12:26PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 29.02.2024 14:01, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 29.02.2024 13:40, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> >> On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 01:11:55PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 29.02.2024 10:55, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> >>>> --- a/README
> >>>> +++ b/README
> >>>> @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ provided by your OS distributor:
> >>>>          - GCC 4.1.2_20070115 or later
> >>>>          - GNU Binutils 2.16.91.0.5 or later
> >>>>          or
> >>>> -        - Clang/LLVM 3.5 or later
> >>>> +        - Clang/LLVM 14.0.0 or later
> >>>
> >>> Wow, that's a big step. I'm build-testing with Clang7 on one system and
> >>> with Clang5 on another (and the latter more frequently than the former).
> >>> If any real dependency on this new a version (about 3 years old?) was
> >>> introduced, I would then no longer be able to locally test any Clang
> >>> builds (and hence the risk would again increase that I introduce issues
> >>> that affect just Clang builds).
> >>
> >> Would it be possible for you to update to a newer version?  I see both
> >> the OpenSUSE containers in Gitlab have newer versions of Clang.
> > 
> > No. These are SLES versions which I'm not intending to touch. See
> > 
> > https://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2024-02/msg01793.html
> > 
> > and
> > 
> > https://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2024-02/msg01795.html
> > 
> > for why. The most recent piece of hardware I've installed a fresh (but
> > not exactly new, yet still fully supported) SLES version on would
> > apparently offer Clang7 only, either.

Hm, OK.  Would containers be an option?

I don't know for gcc, but for clang I'm quite sure the only run time
tested builds are the ones used by FreeBSD.  I'm hesitant to claim
clang versions as supported when they are only tested to generate an
output without triggering any errors, but there's no testing at all
that the generated code is functional.

> Bah, that's not even Clang, only LLVM.

I'm confused by this, doesn't your llvm package include clang?

Thanks, Roger.