Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

LLVM should be removed from the list #176

Open
emipa00 opened this issue Nov 21, 2024 · 6 comments
Open

LLVM should be removed from the list #176

emipa00 opened this issue Nov 21, 2024 · 6 comments

Comments

@emipa00
Copy link
Contributor

emipa00 commented Nov 21, 2024

As of version 19 LLVM does not provide any ARM binaries.

llvm/llvm-project#111118

Apparently ARM-binaries in version 18 was third party and will no longer be published on their repo.

@Tufan0066
Copy link

@ArminiusTux
Copy link
Contributor

ArminiusTux commented Nov 22, 2024

Double objection from my part.

On a general note - if a tool or programme drops ARM support for Windows, we should not remove it from our list.
Instead we should note the limitation or last known native build. The only exception I can think of is if the software becomes unusable.

As of LLVM / Clang specifically - indeed Linaro has been somewhat slow on the v19 releases.
Firstly, they initially published the RCs on their snapshot site instead of GitHub as @Tufan0066 mentioned.
Secondly, Linaro caught up for LLVM-19.1.1-woa64.exe & LLVM-19.1.2-woa64.exe
Thirdly, let them (LLVM Project & Linaro) figure out their best release practices (we should expect some delays for the WinARM builds though).

Lastly, whoever needs the latest Clang incarnation (currently v19.1.4) should head over to MSYS2 (which is the better/more useful building environment anyway compared to the stand-alone package, IMHO).

@emipa00
Copy link
Contributor Author

emipa00 commented Nov 25, 2024

Seems strange to have applications on the list that does not provide ARM releases, but I leave that up to the maintainer of this page to decide.

In this case perhaps the LLVM application should get a banner or subtitle showing that its unofficial support only and may not be the updated version of the application.

However, I am writing from the perspective of one responsible for application deployment for a university so I might not be the intended user of this page.

@arminask
Copy link
Owner

I would more agree towards keeping the last supported native build and noting that the official builds are no longer available, just like @ArminiusTux suggested. What do you think?

@emipa00
Copy link
Contributor Author

emipa00 commented Nov 25, 2024

I have no objection to that.
I have no information about the usability of the last version as I just manage deployment of them.

@lexcyn
Copy link
Contributor

lexcyn commented Nov 26, 2024

This link provides some additional context - it's not that they pulled support, they are running into issues with github runners and until that is resolved, Linaro is providing pre-compiled builds from official sources - so yes, while they are not technically "first party" builds, I would still consider them reliable since Linaro is a legitimate organization: https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-official-llvm-binary-releases-for-arm-and-aarch64-platforms/82413

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants