why Glibc does not build with clang?

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 05/19/2014 08:34 AM, Rich Felker 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.
> 
> Rich

I also strongly agree with the removal of nested functions.

I would only consider adding them back if we could fix these bugs:

    Bug 8300 - no local symbol information within nested or nesting
    procedures
    https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8300
    
    Bug 53927 - wrong value for DW_AT_static_link
    http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53927

I don't blame anyone, it's our own fault for having a feature
that's hard to debug.

Cheers,
Carlos.