This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: why Glibc does not build with clang?
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Rich Felker <dalias at libc dot org>, 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: Tue, 20 May 2014 17:16:19 -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> <20140519123448 dot GL507 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx>
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.