why Glibc does not build with clang?

[Florian Weimer]

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
> non-standard extensions
> 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 
controversial.

-- 
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team