Re: rust: NetBSD 9 earmv7, version selection, RUST_TYPE

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

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

>> In total, this is incorrect as rust-bin (1.83) installs fine and works.
>> There is no comment explaining the conditional and I'm guessing a build
>> of 1.83 from source fails, but that's me guessing.
>>
>> I'm not sure what the right fix is, among:
>>
>>   the 176 switch is obsolete and should be removed
>
> Proobably.
>
> Rust 1.76 was the last version which could be self-hosted on any
> 32-bit arm system we support, i.e. built natively on 32-bit arm.
>
> Later versions fail to build the embedded LLVM with virtual
> memory exhaustion.

This is difficult, as I suspect that even 1.76 will not really build on
a machine with 1G of RAM, but I supppose it might with vast amounts of
swap.

>>   the 176 switch should be gated on RUST_TYPE being src
>
> Probably.
>
>>   rust176 bl3 should allow newer, but that breaks the property of
>>   actually wanting old rust, vs old rust being second best
>
> Yes, it probably should allow newer.

I guess nobody wants old rust, they just accept it if new fail.

>>   rust-bin 1.83.0 is actually broken on 9 earmv7 and shouldn't be
>>   allowed to be installed
>
> In my test log I find that I got a "signal 11" in cargo with the
> combination of 32-bit arm, NetBSD 9 and rust-bin 1.83.0, but I
> *think* this was while my test system ran 9.0, thus missing the
> thread-local storage fixes to ld.elf_so from later netbsd-9
> versions.  I didn't go back and re-test with 9.0 after upgrading
> my test system to 9.4, though later similar tests with 1.84.1 and
> 1.85.0 on 9.4 have succeeded.

I was able to build something with it but all my systems track netbsd-N
for some N.

I feel underclued about rust and would prefer not to make changes
myself.  Plus,  I don't have the appetite to try to adjust this in freeze
myself, but maybe you would want to do something, and maybe you would
not.  Doing it all, except maybe rust176 bl3 as not necessary and
perhaps confusing, post branch of course is fine, if nothing happens
before.

Thanks for the comments which make me think I understood correctly.