This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: why Glibc does not build with clang?
- From: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- To: Konstantin Serebryany <konstantin dot s dot serebryany at gmail dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 14:10:13 +0200
- 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>
On 05/16/2014 01:26 PM, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
Would the Glibc team consider patches that remove local functions and VLAIS?
We have eliminated specific nested functions in the past, based on the
argument that doing so would increase readability. Our nested functions
do not need trampolines, so the required code transformations are not
very complex. On the other hand, it borders on change for change's
sake, with a poor trade-off on risks/benefits scale.
Is there any reason (technical/political/social/religious?) to keep
in Glibc, or this is just a lack of hands to do the cleanup?
We need some extensions because the features are not available in
standard C (or we are trying to implement them :-).
Personally, I would really like to get rid of alloca, but this is
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team