This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: why Glibc does not build with clang?
- From: Will Newton <will dot newton at linaro dot org>
- To: Konstantin Serebryany <konstantin dot s dot serebryany at gmail dot com>
- Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 09:22:31 +0100
- Subject: Re: why Glibc does not build with clang?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAGQ9bdw135gBO+cTQx3Ws1GrRgFsi8-j=Y_mZ=ixebpPzB4gXw at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAGQ9bdxi6v7F=CaFMY=2gsQH=8Ox_NCd3X9fNk_QVRS8=gE97g at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 19 May 2014 09:00, Konstantin Serebryany
> Thanks for moving the (interesting!) alloca discussion to a separate subject.
> Any comments on the original questions?
My opinion, FWIW, is that it would be really nice to have support for
LLVM and I think a lot of people would like to see it.
I suspect a wholesale patch set for LLVM support would not be readily
accepted but each change would need to stand on its own and not make
the code more complex or difficult to maintain. Personally I find
nested functions to be surprising and not very helpful for readability
but I am sure there are others who disagree with that.
Toolchain Working Group, Linaro