This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: why Glibc does not build with clang?
- From: Konstantin Serebryany <konstantin dot s dot serebryany at gmail dot com>
- To: Rich Felker <dalias at libc dot org>
- Cc: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>, Will Newton <will dot newton at linaro dot org>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 13:31:58 +0400
- 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> <CANu=DmjWGtr5kNRikZHSTr1g2ePJHWa7T40HuG0+usZwfOsaYg at mail dot gmail dot com> <20140519090424 dot GF13048 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com> <20140519123448 dot GL507 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx>
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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.