toolchains_llvm
nixpkgs
toolchains_llvm | nixpkgs | |
---|---|---|
4 | 976 | |
268 | 15,844 | |
4.1% | 3.4% | |
8.8 | 10.0 | |
3 days ago | about 17 hours ago | |
Starlark | Nix | |
Apache License 2.0 | MIT License |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
toolchains_llvm
-
cc toolchain for macOS Monterey / Apple M1
load("@bazel_tools//tools/build_defs/repo:http.bzl", "http_archive") BAZEL_TOOLCHAIN_TAG = "0.7.2" BAZEL_TOOLCHAIN_SHA = "f7aa8e59c9d3cafde6edb372d9bd25fb4ee7293ab20b916d867cd0baaa642529" http_archive( name = "com_grail_bazel_toolchain", sha256 = BAZEL_TOOLCHAIN_SHA, strip_prefix = "bazel-toolchain-{tag}".format(tag = BAZEL_TOOLCHAIN_TAG), canonical_id = BAZEL_TOOLCHAIN_TAG, url = "https://github.com/grailbio/bazel-toolchain/archive/{tag}.tar.gz".format(tag = BAZEL_TOOLCHAIN_TAG), ) load("@com_grail_bazel_toolchain//toolchain:deps.bzl", "bazel_toolchain_dependencies") bazel_toolchain_dependencies() load("@com_grail_bazel_toolchain//toolchain:rules.bzl", "llvm_toolchain") llvm_toolchain( name = "llvm_toolchain", llvm_version = "15.0.5", ) load("@llvm_toolchain//:toolchains.bzl", "llvm_register_toolchains") llvm_register_toolchains() http_archive( name = "com_google_googletest", urls = ["https://github.com/google/googletest/archive/609281088cfefc76f9d0ce82e1ff6c30cc3591e5.zip"], strip_prefix = "googletest-609281088cfefc76f9d0ce82e1ff6c30cc3591e5", )
-
Incremental Builds for Haskell with Bazel
Yeah the cross-compilation thing is definitely a rough spot. I have one project that's able to work around it via extensive hacks with macros, but at some point I'll need to do it "the right way."
Honestly if the docs had a canonical example of e.g. using unix_cc_toolchain_config (example: [0]) + Bootlin to compile for aarch64, it'd probably go a long way to making things understandable. Because say what you will about the old CROSSTOOL approach, at least there was a nice tutorial for it.
[0] https://github.com/grailbio/bazel-toolchain/blob/f14a8a5de8f...
-
Cross-compiling to linux on MacOS with cgo
I'm really not familiar with this issue or Go nor C++ overall, but if all you need is to set up a C++ toolchain, this should be quite simple and solve your issue.
-
WebAssembly
The trick is that to provide Bazel with a custom toolchain involves way more than just setting an environment variable, because Bazel wants to control installing and making available the compiler reliably (e.g., what if `emcc` is not present on the system where Bazel was invoked? Bazel solves that problem by fetching it and building it for that system)
There are projects that provide drop-in support for custom toolchains (e.g., we use this project[0] in Sorbet to fetch and build a custom LLVM/Clang toolchain for every host we build on (rather than relying on the system toolchain). But I'm not aware of a project that has done that for Emscripten. Maybe it would be as easy as plucking out what we've done in our project into a project that others could depend on, but to quote a colleague:
> Setting up a cc toolchain in Bazel is a unique sort of pain.
[0] https://github.com/grailbio/bazel-toolchain/
nixpkgs
-
Tracexec: TUI for tracing execve and pre-exec behavior
This will drop you into a shell where `tracexec` is installed.
[1]: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/310158
-
Nix: The Breaking Point
I don't think so. The article is probably intended for the Nix community, so the author doesn't need to convince HN that something is going on. If as an outsider you are interested then you need to look into it yourself, the community has no obligation to make their internal conflicts legible to the outside world.
As an outsider myself, it certainly looks like something is going on as more than 20 Nixpkg maintainers left in a week: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues?q=label%3A%228.has%3...
- Maintainers Leaving
-
Air Force picks Anduril, General Atomics to develop unmanned fighter jets
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/commits?author=neon-sunset
-
Eelco Dolstra's leadership is corrosive to the Nix project
I see two signers in the top 6 displayed on https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/graphs/contributors
-
3rd Edition of Programming: Principles and Practice Using C++ by Stroustrup
For a single file script, nix can make the package management quite easy: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/doc/languages-f...
For example,
```
- NixOS/nixpkgs: There isn't a clear canonical way to refer to a specific package
-
NixOS Is Not Reproducible
Yes, Nix doesn't actually ensure that the builds are deterministic. In fact it works just fine if they aren't. There are packages in nixpkgs that aren't reproducible: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aiss...
-
The xz attack shell script
I'm not familiar with Bazel, but Nix in it's current form wouldn't have solved this attack. First of all, the standard mkDerivation function calls the same configure; make; make install process that made this attack possible. Nixpkgs regularly pulls in external resources (fetchUrl and friends) that are equally vulnerable to a poisoned release tarball. Checkout the comment on the current xz entry in nixpkgs https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/pkgs/tools/comp...
-
Debian Git Monorepo
NixOS uses a monorepo and I think everyone's love it.
I love being able to easily grep through all the packages source code and there's regularly PRs that harmonizes conventions across many packages.
Nixpkgs doesn't include the packaged software source code, so it's a lot more practical than what Debian is doing.
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs