On 2025/09/05 19:55, Brandon Mercer wrote:
> > 16		used only for mozillas on aarch64
> 
> Is it possible or benefitial to do the work to port the mozillas away
> from the llvm 16 dependency so we can do away with this "older" one? 

would be beneficial, I don't know whether it's possible.

we could at least set 16 to ONLY_FOR_ARCHS=aarch64, which is built on
fadt machines anyway.

> > 19		used for loads of things
> 
> If the above isn't practical, how about migrating the other apps that
> use 19 to 20 or 21? 

the point is that base includes 19, but misses many of the tools.
we should have matching tools for the version in base.

> > 20		unused/unlinked for now
> > 21		unused/unlinked for now
> > 
> > how important is it to have zig 0.15? would it be too painful to stick
> > with 0.14 and llvm/19 until either there's a version using llvm/21 if
> > that gets linked to the build, or we can kill off llvm/16?
> >
> 
> zig 15 requires llvm 20.

I see that, but how important is it to have zig 0.15 instead of
0.14?

>                          The work for zig 16 has already built the
> dependency on llvm 21.

skipping over llvm 20 and going straight to 21 would generally seem
not a bad idea as far as the ports tree and bulk builds goes.

>                        Since I am likely one of the only/few people
> actively using it, and it is under constant development it is a moving
> target at best. On one hand we would likely only depend on 20 for a few
> months for the zig 15 release, on the other hand it ties up our ports
> builders for a while for very little benefit.

that's a period that will include release builds.

> I'm happy to track these
> diffs in my own tree. Once zig 1.0 lands this will slow down a bunch and
> I would ask at that point we satisfy the llvm requirement even if we do
> have to build a couple.
> 
> Cheers
>