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

groff: fix build on clang 16 #235505

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Conversation

reckenrode
Copy link
Contributor

Description of changes

Clang 16 defaults to C++17, which does not allow the register storage class specifier. This is fixed upstream and will be included in 1.23.0, but the commit with the fixes does not apply cleanly, so a patch is provided instead of using fetchpatch.

Things done
  • Built on platform(s)
    • x86_64-linux
    • aarch64-linux
    • x86_64-darwin
    • aarch64-darwin
  • For non-Linux: Is sandbox = true set in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
  • Tested, as applicable:
  • Tested compilation of all packages that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage
  • Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
  • 23.11 Release Notes (or backporting 23.05 Release notes)
    • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
    • (Module updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is significant
    • (Module addition) Added a release notes entry if adding a new NixOS module
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

Clang 16 defaults to C++17, which does not allow the `register` storage
class specifier. This is fixed upstream and will be included in 1.23.0,
but the commit with the fixes does not apply cleanly, so a patch is
provided instead of using `fetchpatch`.
Copy link
Contributor

@toonn toonn left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm keeping my eye on this. However, it's looking like the 1.23 release of Groff might not be far off and I'm hopeful we can avoid carrying the big patch ourselves.

I consider waiting for the next release feasible until such time as this becomes a true blocker.

@reckenrode
Copy link
Contributor Author

According to the latest status update, it looks a release is imminent (possibly this week). I’ll keep this PR open until it the new version is released in case #241692 is merged before that happens, and we need to fix the groff build in the meantime.

@afh afh mentioned this pull request Jul 6, 2023
13 tasks
@reckenrode
Copy link
Contributor Author

Closing in favor of #241870.

@reckenrode reckenrode closed this Jul 7, 2023
@afh
Copy link
Member

afh commented Jul 9, 2023

Great work on this @reckenrode!! (Un)fortunately(?) groff 1.23.0 has been released making the changes proposed in this PR no longer necessary.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants