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: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Will Newton <will dot newton at linaro dot org>, Konstantin Serebryany <konstantin dot s dot serebryany at gmail dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 08:34:48 -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>
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.