We already did them on non-mass-rebuild llvm 6. Also, this allows
simplifying the stdenv booting.
We were missing the libcxxabi dep in compile-rt in llvm 6, so fixed that
too.
It may seem nice and abstract to just override the default version, but
that breaks the alias relationship where the original llvmPackages_* is
no longer in sync. Put another away, modifying the referee rather
instead of breaking the reference "copy-on-write" is impossible.
We want `buildPackages` to be almost the same as
`buildPackages.buildPackges`, but that is only true if most packages
don't care about the target platform. The commented code however made
them all care about whether the target platform was Darwin.
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
Note that a bunch of non-python packages use this attribute already.
Some of those are clearly unaware of the fact that this attribute does
not exists in stdenv because they define it but don't to add it to
their `bulidInputs` :)
Also note that I use `buildInputs` here and only handle regular
builds because python and haskell builders do it this way and I'm not
sure how to properly handle the cross-compilation case.
As in:
$ nix eval -f . bash
Also remove the glibc propagation inherit that made these necessary,
stages handle propagating libc themselves (apparently) and
AFAICT no hashes are changed as a result of this.
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
