5 ms·
There’s an issue I reported (along with a proof of concept fix) over 4 years ago, that has yet to be fixed: building a mixed source project containing Go & C++
by cstrahan 4y ago
There’s an issue I reported (along with a proof of concept fix) over 4 years ago, that has yet to be fixed: building a mixed source project containing Go & C++ & C++ protocol buffers results in silently broken binaries as rules_go will happily not forward along the linker arguments that the C++ build targets (the protobuf ones, using the built in C++ rules) declare.
See https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_go/issues/1486 https://github.com/bazelbuild/rules_go/issues/1486
Not very confidence inspiring when Google’s build system falls over when you combine three technologies that are used commonly throughout Google’s code base (two of which were created by Google).
If you’re Google, sure, use Bazel. Otherwise, I wouldn’t recommend it. Google will cater to their needs and their needs only — putting the code out in the open means you get the privilege of sharing in their tech debt, and if something isn’t working, you can contribute your labor to them for free.
No thanks :)
- vlovich123 4y agoDoes protobufs rely on static initialization or did you link the wrong bug? That would be extremely strange because there’s generally a disallowance of any / all non trivial static initialization in library code Google-wide, especially for protobufs.