Define CMAKE_SYSTEM_NAME on a cross build targeting DragonFly. by inferiorhumano...

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @ozkanonur (or someone else) soon.

Please see the contribution instructions for more information. Namely, in order to ensure the minimum review times lag, PR authors and assigned reviewers should ensure that the review label (S-waiting-on-review and S-waiting-on-author) stays updated, invoking these commands when appropriate:

• @rustbot author: the review is finished, PR author should check the comments and take action accordingly
• @rustbot review: the author is ready for a review, this PR will be queued again in the reviewer's queue

This PR changes how LLVM is built. Consider updating src/bootstrap/download-ci-llvm-stamp.

Given that this list is likely a.) not complete and b.) will grow over time, would it make sense to call splitn on target and turn this into a match statement instead?

would it make sense to call splitn on target and turn this into a match statement instead?

I don't think it makes any difference since it's still a string comparison

would it make sense to call splitn on target and turn this into a match statement instead?

I don't think it makes any difference since it's still a string comparison

Ah I was thinking mainly in terms of legibility, however that wouldn't account for platforms where the triplet is actually a quadruplet (e.g. linux-musl or windows-msvc).

Anyways the other thing that comes to mind is printing a warning if CMAKE_SYSTEM_NAME is left undefined e.g.

} else {
    eprintln!("could not determine CMAKE_SYSTEM_NAME from the target `{target}`, build may fail")
}

Anyways the other thing that comes to mind is printing a warning if CMAKE_SYSTEM_NAME is left undefined e.g.

} else {
    eprintln!("could not determine CMAKE_SYSTEM_NAME from the target `{target}`, build may fail")
}

This seems better. Can you add that else block which prints this information with builder.info instead of eprintln? Once this is done with squashing the commits into single one, we can land this :)

Thanks a lot!

@bors r+ rollup

📌 Commit a0538db has been approved by ozkanonur

It is now in the queue for this repository.

Testing commit a0538db with merge 2395c22...

The job mingw-check failed! Check out the build log: (web) (plain)

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

Seems like a regression from #113514 similar to #113798

a fix PR was merged #114062

@bors retry