This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: why Glibc does not build with clang?

I see 3 positive replies and 0 negative.
Let me start from sending a few small patches, each removing a single
use of a nested function.

Then we'll need to remove the VLAIS (there are at least 4 of them).
If there is a strong feeling that VLAIS should remain in glibc,
the whole exercise with nested functions will be useless, so please
speak up now.


On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Rich Felker <> wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 02:34:24PM +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 09:22:31AM +0100, Will Newton wrote:
>> > 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.
>> I second this, especially the removal of nested functions.
> I also strongly agree with the removal of nested functions.
> Rich

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]