Conversation
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
5b8038c to
f9f5959
Compare
|
The third (iffy) commit let's me compile and run the thin-lto pipeline for dependencies, but it runs into the following assertion: Removing the assertion runs into the next one: That sounds like an assertion which I probably shouldn't touch. I would have preferred to just support thin-lto instead of having to alter the compilation pipeline even more and move all other workers to fat-lto, since I was worried that would break other assumptions. But it might be easier, I'll look more into it. The enforcing of fat-lto should be coupled to the user setting |
|
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot) |
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #138177) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
|
@rustbot label +F-autodiff |
|
@ZuseZ4 any updates on this? thanks |
|
@Dylan-DPC are you doing PR triage, or interested? Oli and I tried for a while, but in lib builds it's hard to compile everything in one coden unit, there were some very hardcoded blockers. I don't realistically have the capacity to try to fix this again before November. |
|
fixed in another pr. |
Work in Progress.
Tracking:
r? @oli-obk