Re: Suppressing native compilation (short and long term)

[Andrea Corallo]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> Andrea Corallo [2022-10-15 15:10:06] wrote:
>> Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
>>>> Dumb question: can't we just run the spawned compilation processes with
>>>> --no-site-file?
>>>
>>> For trampolines, I guess that should work since they shouldn't depend on
>>> local customizations.  Of course, a tempting alternative is to resort to
>>> "binary hacking", i.e. compile *one* template-trampoline and then
>>> generate all every other trampoline by copying that template and
>>> patching the right "stuff" into it.  That would save us from running the
>>> compiler to generate the trampolines (i.e. it would let us behave
>>> correctly on Windows even when GCC/libgccjit is not found at run time),
>>> but it would force us to write architecture-dependent code to patch the
>>> binary template.
>>
>> I think writing and maintaining arch dependent code to fix and
>> manipulate binaries is really a road we don't want to go down!
>>
>>  (a terrified) Andrea :)
>
> I tend to agree.  I just wish we could rely on some other tool to do
> that for us.

Yeah, I'm not aware of such a tool.  I guess a similar path lead GCL to
maintaining a (now very stale) in tree custom version of binutils.

  Andrea