lberki

@emaxx-google Can you try `7602fb260075dc9e992fdb5adaba621eb670cdd4`? Your stack trace indicated a problem that was pretty easily resolvable and our test battery agreed. What I would do if I had more than...

Doing some code archaeology (I went back as far as cl/146237448), it looks like this ordering was what Blaze did before it was Bazel and no one wanted to change...

cc @gregestren Do you consider wrapping the product configuration variables in a rule tech debt? I thought that it was a pretty neat abstraction because one custom build setting is...

I agree with the general sentiment that it's weird to have two "kinds of things" that describe the current configuration: build settings (very flexible, cannot affect toolchain resolution) and platform...

Let me see if I understand this correctly: in the current model of Bazel, a toolchain has two configurations: the one it runs on and the one it targets (e.g....

For Java, that's arguably the case since the JDK and the JVM are different, but what about a C++ compiler or just a regular tool? If you accept the above...

`resolved_*_binary()` isn't a full solution, is it? In particular, it allows one to decide what toolchain to use based on either the exec platform or the target platform, but not...

I'm not too hot about this. Reason being, we already have a scripting language inside Bazel called Starlark and embedding a WASM interpreter would give Bazel another extension point. If...

@meisterT that's theoretically possible, although it constrains heavily what one can do with the results because the binary will be run as part of the test action. As such, it'll...

As per my https://github.com/bazelbuild/bazel/issues/532#issuecomment-2006697882 , I'll close this bug as a duplicate of #532. Running multiple build commands in parallel would entail more work than doing so with query, but...