From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71B8B158232 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 2024 04:11:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B357FE118D; Sun, 8 Dec 2024 04:11:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (woodpecker.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 115EBE1050 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 2024 04:11:17 +0000 (UTC) From: Sam James To: =?utf-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New categories for LLVM In-Reply-To: <87f27044c599b4168d27d79367fd4b47575502c9.camel@gentoo.org> (=?utf-8?Q?=22Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny=22's?= message of "Sat, 07 Dec 2024 17:07:46 +0100") Organization: Gentoo References: <87f27044c599b4168d27d79367fd4b47575502c9.camel@gentoo.org> User-Agent: mu4e 1.12.7; emacs 31.0.50 Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2024 04:11:13 +0000 Message-ID: <87ikrux19a.fsf@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: ac84f5a7-66cf-4120-8bb5-5ddd5052d8e2 X-Archives-Hash: 8f8fd52baaeb67579c294ae9145d7e19 Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny writes: > Hello, > > Given that the number of LLVM packages is growing, and probably will > grow again (I'm introducing "offload" right now, expect at least MLIR > soon, there are open requests for flang, polly...), I'd like to propose > creating dedicated categories for these packages and moving them there. > > If not anything else, this will help consistently applying flags > and keywords to these packages (`/etc/portage/package.*` accept > wildcards). I quite like the idea of having a category to ease keywording and testing. > > My initial idea would be to use two categories: one for the toolchain > packages, another for runtimes, e.g.: > > llvm-core/ > clang > clang-common > clang-runtime > clang-toolchain-symlinks > lld > lld-toolchain-symlinks > lldb > llvm > llvm-common > llvm-toolchain-symlinks > llvmgold > > llvm-runtimes/ > compiler-rt > compiler-rt-sanitizers > libclc > libcxx > libcxxabi > libomp (-> openmp?) > llvm-offload (-> offload) > llvm-unwind (-> unwind?) > I'm not sure if I'm sold on *two*. What happens for stuff like mlir where it's not a runtime but it's arguably more of one than core? It just doesn't feel like the division works great. Or maybe it's just because I feel like llvm-core will keep growing and llvm-runtimes won't. > clang-python, lit and llvm-ocaml would remain in their language > categories. > > WDYT? I'm going to start another reply for a subthread. thanks, sam