Linux 6.3-rc3

[Nathan Chancellor]

On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 05:23:12PM +0200, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Nathan Chancellor <nathan at kernel.org> writes:
> 
> >> This is nitpicking but it would be nice if the tarball contents wouldn't
> >> conflict with each other. Now both llvm-16.0.0-aarch64.tar.gz and
> >> llvm-16.0.0-x86_64.tar extract to the same directory llvm-16.0.0 with
> >> same binary names. It would be much better if they would extract to
> >> llvm-16.0.0-aarch64 and llvm-16.0.0-x86_64, respectively.
> >> 
> >> For example, Arnd's crosstool packages don't conflict with each other:
> >> 
> >> https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/
> >
> > I could certainly do that but what is the use case for extracting both?
> > You cannot run the aarch64 version on an x86_64 host and vice versa, so
> > why bother extracting them?
> 
> Ah, I didn't realise that. I assumed llvm-16.0.0-aarch64.tar.gz was a
> cross compiler. I'm sure you documented that in the page but hey who
> reads the documentation ;)

:)

I have adjusted the README to hopefully make that clearer.

> > I had figured the architecture would be irrelevant once installed on
> > the host, so I opted only to include it in the tarball name. Perhaps I
> > should make it clearer that these are the host architectures, not the
> > target architectures (because clang is multi-targeted, unlike GCC)?
> 
> Makes sense now. But I still think it's good style that a tarball named
> llvm-16.0.0-aarch64.tar.gz extracts to llvm-16.0.0-aarch64.

Indeed, I have adjusted it for future builds:

https://github.com/nathanchance/env/commit/314837e6706889138121a32140d2acdc7895d390

> >> And maybe request a similar llvm directory under pub/tools to make it
> >> more official? :)

We now have https://kernel.org/pub/tools/llvm/, which is about as
official as we can get I suppose :)

https://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/nathan/llvm/ now points
people there.

Cheers,
Nathan