Support pure = "on" for [email protected]
#1629
Conversation
|
Hello @bazelbuild/bcr-maintainers, modules without existing maintainers (circl) have been updated in this PR. Please review the changes. |
|
RFC: @fmeum |
mattyclarkson
force-pushed
the
circl-is-pure
branch
2 times, most recently
from
59b9dbe
to
d3fd88f
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@fmeum my question here would be: is switching to !cgo the correct thing or should rules_go be setting the purego build tag when pure = "on"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems that purego is the community accepted flag: golang/go#23172
Should we drop this and add purego build flag to rules_go?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This patch mirrors this comment in that cgo is basically !purego.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Based on the Go thread you linked, I would prefer to add purego support to rules_go instead of moving this module further away from upstream.
Does that sound reasonable to you? Let me know if you want help with the change to rules_go.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does that sound reasonable to you?
Yeah. That's a better, more general solution assuming that the community aligns on purego. We can always upstream purego tags to projects or patch them in the BCR. I'll get on that patch now
Any views on the noasm flag? Seems that various projects use that to control adding .S files in but I'm unsure what that means for rules_go? If rules_go also specified noasm when pure = "on" then the gazelle generation for circl would likely "Just Work ™️"
Personally, I don't really understand the intersection between cgo, purego and noasm. To myself, they seem mutually exclusive. If purego is on, surely that means !cgo? Also, if you want purego, surely that means noasm as well?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For example, the go developers do not include assembly when purego is on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/561935
circl has a separate noasm and purego tag.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Have raised cloudflare/circl#491 for upstream discussion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
cloudflare/circl#492 aligns on purego.
mattyclarkson
force-pushed
the
circl-is-pure
branch
3 times, most recently
from
b3d72af
to
bfbe7ef
Compare
This switches the `purego` build tag to use the `cgo` tag which allows the source files to be correctly conditionally included in the build actions. There is a second patch that adds a couple of unit tests that have `pure = "on"` enabled to prevent regressions.
mattyclarkson
force-pushed
the
circl-is-pure
branch
from
bfbe7ef
to
e141836
Compare
meteorcloudy
added
the
presubmit-auto-run
|
cloudflare/circl#492 is in Once Closing this. |
|
@mattyclarkson Wouldn't the module still be needed for the CGO version of circl? Have you observed a difference in performance? |
|
The CGO version will be compiled if |
|
Sure, but does gazelle generate the correct build files for it to find the assembly without a patch? That's what I introduced the module for in the first place. |
|
You are correct, sorry. It doesn't correctly find the header file. We will still need a patch. I was only testing with I'll get one up once the |
This switches out
puregobuild tags for the inverse!cgobuild tags.The correct files are then conditionally added and compiled.
This supports
pure = "on"binaries.A patch adds a
pure = "on"unit test to prevent regressions.