Verify Apple LLVM versions independently #27006
Conversation
…ersion is no longer reported
|
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @brson (or someone else) soon. If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. The way Github handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes. Please see the contribution instructions for more information. |
|
@bors r+ The configure script snowball rolls on. |
|
📌 Commit 7131e6f has been approved by |
Since Apple LLVM no longer reports which version of LLVM it's based off (starting with 7.0.0), I believe it's time to start checking Apple LLVM versions directly. The changes in this pull request update the `configure` script to check "Apple LLVM" versions independently if no "based off" version can be found. If a "based off" version is included, however, it will be preferred. (This is a less hacky version of #26653)
|
I think this can be simplified by only having two instead of three different checks. According to https://gist.github.com/yamaya/2924292 Apple LLVM 4.2+ should be compatible, so I think the "based on LLVM" check could be completely dropped. (The complete list would be 4.2, 5.0, 6.0, 6.1, 7.0) |
|
That's possible too. I just wasn't sure which versions of Apple LLVM were compatible and didn't want to break something I didn't understand. |
alexcrichton
added
beta-nominated
brson
added
beta-accepted
Since Apple LLVM no longer reports which version of LLVM it's based off (starting with 7.0.0), I believe it's time to start checking Apple LLVM versions directly.
The changes in this pull request update the
configurescript to check "Apple LLVM" versions independently if no "based off" version can be found. If a "based off" version is included, however, it will be preferred.(This is a less hacky version of #26653)