This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: why Glibc does not build with clang?
- From: Rich Felker <dalias at libc dot org>
- To: Andreas Schwab <schwab at linux-m68k dot org>
- Cc: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>, Konstantin Serebryany <konstantin dot s dot serebryany at gmail dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 12:17:28 -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> <20140523214019 dot DA9FF2C3975 at topped-with-meat dot com> <20140524142902 dot GP507 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <874n0fi6ac dot fsf at igel dot home> <20140524145139 dot GQ507 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx> <87zji7gnqx dot fsf at igel dot home>
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 06:11:50PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Rich Felker <email@example.com> writes:
> > On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 04:46:03PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> >> Rich Felker <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> >> > Nested functions are a feature that fundamentally requires producing
> >> > an insecure executable/library (executable-stack flag)
> >> Only if you pass the address of it out of the containing function.
> > That's my "_except_ in cases where the compiler optimizes out that
> > need."
> That's not the exception, that's the rule. If you never take the
> address of the nested function you never need a trampoline.
"If you only use feature X in one particular way" (versus in full
generality, using it any way you can use a function) I call that an
exception to the rule, not the general case. But this has devolved to
a pointless discussion of the meaning of "exception".