Skip to content

Conversation

@Firestar99
Copy link
Member

@Firestar99 Firestar99 commented Apr 26, 2025

closes #242

@Firestar99 Firestar99 enabled auto-merge April 26, 2025 11:24
@Firestar99 Firestar99 changed the title force libm <=0.2.11 as 0.2.12 has breaking changes force libm <=0.2.11 as 0.2.12 has breaking changes Apr 26, 2025
@Firestar99 Firestar99 force-pushed the libm_force_downgrade branch from 20469fd to deca6c0 Compare April 26, 2025 11:25
@Firestar99 Firestar99 changed the title force libm <=0.2.11 as 0.2.12 has breaking changes force libm <=0.2.11, as 0.2.12 has breaking changes Apr 26, 2025
@Firestar99 Firestar99 added this pull request to the merge queue Apr 26, 2025
Merged via the queue into main with commit 1e4e468 Apr 26, 2025
7 checks passed
@Firestar99 Firestar99 deleted the libm_force_downgrade branch April 26, 2025 17:22
@tgross35
Copy link

Would you clarifying the problem is? 0.2.12 was not a breaking changes.

@Firestar99
Copy link
Member Author

Wrote you a summary in #242

libm 0.2.12+ breaks rust-gpu due to introducing new intrinsics that interact with rustc. We have a bit of a weird way to process these intrinsics and emit the corresponding SPIR-V (potentially with GLSL extensions) that needs to be updated to understand these new intrinsics. For now, we're locking libm to 0.2.11 to prevent new projects or cargo update from picking up newer broken versions.

@nazar-pc
Copy link
Contributor

Well, I really don't like the solution of constraining the version here because it is toxic for downstream users that at some point will be unable to upgrade their dependencies due to conflicts.

There is also no TODO or any explanation in the Cargo.toml explaining what the issue is and what it would take to lift it. Consider always leaving one with a link to issue/discussion for future reference. I also don't see a linked issue about removing this requirement in general. This can't be a long-term solution.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

4 participants