Skip to content

Use rust target triple instead of LLVM's - #954

Merged
antoyo merged 1 commit into
masterfrom
fix/libgccjit-sysroot-path
Aug 10, 2026
Merged

Use rust target triple instead of LLVM's#954
antoyo merged 1 commit into
masterfrom
fix/libgccjit-sysroot-path

Conversation

@antoyo

@antoyo antoyo commented Aug 9, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

No description provided.

@bjorn3

bjorn3 commented Aug 9, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

This would break with custom targets. TargetTuple::tuple() returns the basename of the json file for custom targets, which has no relation to the underlying target that the codegen backend would generate code for.

@antoyo

antoyo commented Aug 9, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

This would break with custom targets. TargetTuple::tuple() returns the basename of the json file for custom targets, which has no relation to the underlying target that the codegen backend would generate code for.

Using the LLVM target caused issues in the past.
Do you mean we should fix something on the bootstrap side as well?

@bjorn3

bjorn3 commented Aug 9, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I'm not sure there is a great fix. I guess keeping this code as is and accepting that libgccjit is found based on the json filename works for now.

@antoyo

antoyo commented Aug 9, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

I'm not sure there is a great fix. I guess keeping this code as is and accepting that libgccjit is found based on the json filename works for now.

Isn't the current code broken for all arch where the LLVM target triple is different than Rust's target triple?

@bjorn3

bjorn3 commented Aug 9, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

I meant keeping the code in this PR as is and merging this PR.

@antoyo
antoyo merged commit 66e7637 into master Aug 10, 2026
39 checks passed
@antoyo
antoyo deleted the fix/libgccjit-sysroot-path branch August 10, 2026 01:02
@antoyo

antoyo commented Aug 10, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Thanks.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants