`pkgsBuildTarget` allows us to avoid repeated and confusing conditions.
The others merely provide clarity for one the foreign package set's
target platform matters.
The compilers themselves can pull them from `bootPkgs`, where they
should always come from anyways. This enforces that, simplifies that
code, and allows use to avoid more `rec { ... }` too.
enableShared in generic-builder.nix should default to what the GHC
compiler was compiled with. Add a passthru to all of the GHC compilers
to hold the value of enableShared. If enableShared is not set in the
GHC we just use false as the default value for enableSharedLibraries.
Note: I may have missed some compilers. Only GHC & GHCJS are covered
by this commit but this shouldn’t break evaluation of anything else.
nixpkgs#37012 and nixpkgs#37707 introduces the setup-hooks for libiconv, which inject `-liconv` into the `NIX_LDFLAGS`. This breaks horribly on windows where the linker end up having no idea how to linke `-liconv`. The configure.ac file specifically ignores libiconv on windows.
nixpkgs#37012 and nixpkgs#37707 introduces the setup-hooks for libiconv, which inject `-liconv` into the `NIX_LDFLAGS`. This breaks horribly on windows where the linker end up having no idea how to linke `-liconv`. The configure.ac file specifically ignores libiconv on windows.
The hack of using `crossConfig` to enforce stricter handling of
dependencies is replaced with a dedicated `strictDeps` for that purpose.
(Experience has shown that my punning was a terrible idea that made more
difficult and embarrising to teach teach.)
Now that is is clear, a few packages now use `strictDeps`, to fix
various bugs:
- bintools-wrapper and cc-wrapper
Following legacy packing conventions, `isArm` was defined just for
32-bit ARM instruction set. This is confusing to non packagers though,
because Aarch64 is an ARM instruction set.
The official ARM overview for ARMv8[1] is surprisingly not confusing,
given the overall state of affairs for ARM naming conventions, and
offers us a solution. It divides the nomenclature into three levels:
```
ISA: ARMv8 {-A, -R, -M}
/ \
Mode: Aarch32 Aarch64
| / \
Encoding: A64 A32 T32
```
At the top is the overall v8 instruction set archicture. Second are the
two modes, defined by bitwidth but differing in other semantics too, and
buttom are the encodings, (hopefully?) isomorphic if they encode the
same mode.
The 32 bit encodings are mostly backwards compatible with previous
non-Thumb and Thumb encodings, and if so we can pun the mode names to
instead mean "sets of compatable or isomorphic encodings", and then
voilà we have nice names for 32-bit and 64-bit arm instruction sets
which do not use the word ARM so as to not confused either laymen or
experienced ARM packages.
[1]: https://developer.arm.com/products/architecture/a-profile
(cherry picked from commit ba52ae5048)
Following legacy packing conventions, `isArm` was defined just for
32-bit ARM instruction set. This is confusing to non packagers though,
because Aarch64 is an ARM instruction set.
The official ARM overview for ARMv8[1] is surprisingly not confusing,
given the overall state of affairs for ARM naming conventions, and
offers us a solution. It divides the nomenclature into three levels:
```
ISA: ARMv8 {-A, -R, -M}
/ \
Mode: Aarch32 Aarch64
| / \
Encoding: A64 A32 T32
```
At the top is the overall v8 instruction set archicture. Second are the
two modes, defined by bitwidth but differing in other semantics too, and
buttom are the encodings, (hopefully?) isomorphic if they encode the
same mode.
The 32 bit encodings are mostly backwards compatible with previous
non-Thumb and Thumb encodings, and if so we can pun the mode names to
instead mean "sets of compatable or isomorphic encodings", and then
voilà we have nice names for 32-bit and 64-bit arm instruction sets
which do not use the word ARM so as to not confused either laymen or
experienced ARM packages.
[1]: https://developer.arm.com/products/architecture/a-profile
