Stream: t-compiler/wg-prioritization/alerts

Topic: I-prioritize #77716 Revert "Allow dynamic linking for iOS/t…

triagebot (Oct 15 2020 at 15:41, on Zulip):

@WG-prioritization/alerts issue #77716 has been requested for prioritization.


Camelid (Oct 15 2020 at 18:52, on Zulip):

Sounds like P-high to me.

Yuki Okushi (Oct 15 2020 at 18:54, on Zulip):

(note that this one is not an issue but a PR)

Jonas Schievink (Oct 15 2020 at 19:20, on Zulip):

No issue was filed for this, but this breaks production users. Not quite sure how to deal with it, certainly would be good to fix the Cargo limitations, but maybe we should revert regardless?

Yuki Okushi (Oct 15 2020 at 19:26, on Zulip):

I think it's reasonable to file an issue for it to discuss reverting vs. introducing an actual fix?

Yuki Okushi (Oct 15 2020 at 19:28, on Zulip):

and as someone said before, I'd nominate PRs rather than prioritize them

apiraino (Oct 15 2020 at 19:48, on Zulip):

by reading the comments it looks like the first patch and this subsequent PR are suboptimal to solve the issue. In my limited understading we have two issues: 1) compile against dynamic libraries => your App won't be pusblished on AppStore and 2) do not compile against dynamic libs and have your build fail (the case of the PR submitter).

The real "fix" involves a bit more work and thus would imply pinning rustc to 1.45.x for an unknown time

apiraino (Oct 15 2020 at 19:54, on Zulip):

I think I agree on nominating this PR (or better, the underlying issue)

Camelid (Oct 15 2020 at 20:42, on Zulip):

Yuki Okushi said:

and as someone said before, I'd nominate PRs rather than prioritize them

I believe this was auto-prioritized because it was marked as a regression

Yuki Okushi (Oct 15 2020 at 21:24, on Zulip):

I mentioned it because you said "Sounds like P-high to me" and I thought we were going to prioritize this PR :)
anyway we can drop I-prioritize and continue the discussion, I think

Camelid (Oct 15 2020 at 21:27, on Zulip):

Well I wasn't sure, but I figured I would throw out a level in case we did :)

Yuki Okushi (Oct 15 2020 at 21:28, on Zulip):

I see!

triagebot (Oct 15 2020 at 21:29, on Zulip):

Issue #77716's prioritization request has been removed.

apiraino (Oct 22 2020 at 10:00, on Zulip):

Seems like the issue is "fixed" by allowing cargo to handle the situation.

My understanding is that both the previous patch #71516 and this one are neither the perfect solution. "Fixing" it somewhere else (i.e. in cargo) might leave an underlying issue open ("allow or not dynamic linking on iOS platform?").
I wonder if this patch is still eligible for beta backport and/or should be nominated for discussion to see if is there anything to do from the rustc perspective.


apiraino (Oct 22 2020 at 10:01, on Zulip):

maybe even closed? :-)

Joshua Nelson (Oct 22 2020 at 12:51, on Zulip):

if there's support in cargo I don't see why this needs further discussion - the reason they wanted to revert is because it broke their code, but now they can choose whether to use static or dynamic linking

Joshua Nelson (Oct 22 2020 at 12:52, on Zulip):

I don't think being able to use dynamic linking was ever opposed, just forcing people to use it

Last update: Apr 15 2021 at 02:15UTC