This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: why Glibc does not build with clang?


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


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]