Re: lang/rust with gcc10 (Re: diff from 2025-05-14 03:12 to 2025-05-17 10:36

[Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>]

Havard Eidnes <he%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes:

> Insisting on a full analysis of what the underlying root problem
> is is actually a quite tall order, especially given the size and
> complexity of lang/rust, so if that's going to be a barrier to
> making it buildable, that will probably cause it to be
> un-buildable for the given combination an extended time period if
> not indefinately.  I'll claim that is actually a worse way to
> deal with the issue than applying a known workaround..

Maybe so, but just adding the workaround without a comment with all of
the known information, and without explaining that it's the wrong
approach but nobody has any better ideas, is not an ok thing to do.
The next person to read the makefile will have no idea why.

So it could be explaining that while upstream documentations X, and gcc
says that Y should be sufficent, Y fails, and Z works, and we therefore
set it to Z, even though that's a kludge and masks a real, unknown bug.