Re: [PATCH v1 0/2] RISC-V: enable rust

[Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1711 bytes --]

Palmer, Miguel, Nathan, etc

On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 01:28:06PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 01:52:47PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 9:01 AM Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I do intend revisting this, probably after the min. version for rust
> > > gets bumped, I've just been really busy with other work the last weeks.
> > 
> > Thanks Conor! That would be great. We are increasing the minimum
> > version after the merge window to Rust 1.70.0 (assuming no unexpected
> > issues).
> 
> Right, so probably I won't resubmit anything until after v6.6 then,
> as it won't be in the RISC-V tree until then, by the sounds of your
> timeline.
> Gives me plenty of time to try and unravel the mess of libclang versions
> and what extensions are supported by each tool. Not like I am devoid of
> other things that need to be done!

6.6 came and went, and I have been busy dealing with the other
responsibilities I mentioned and have not had a chance to look here.
I rebased this today and things still work as they did when I submitted
this version, but things have gotten muddier on the LLVM side of things,
as more recent versions have added yet more extension support.

My inclination at this point is to engage in a bit of LARPing as an
ostrich, and sorta ignore these concerns initially. Specifically, I'd
like to drop the idea of having the gcc support, and restrict to LLVM=1.
When it comes to asymmetrical extension support between the C and Rust
toolchains, I'm think we deal with that as we do for the C toolchains,
sort issues out as-and-when they arrive rather than punt this again.

Thoughts?

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]