[PATCH] Introduce the idea of a minimum libc version

[David Majnemer]

On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:54 AM, İsmail Dönmez <ismail at donmez.ws> wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 9:20 PM, David Majnemer
> <david.majnemer at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Er, I don't see how "libc version" is a meaningful thing on linux.  The
> presumption of which libc implementation is not baked into the triple.
> >
>
> This makes sense on Linux too. See
>
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20131223/199910.html
> where this kind of information would be useful.
>

Again, I don't see how we can assume linux == glibc.  I'm pretty sure
r198093 is conservatively correct but not precisely correct.


>
> ismail
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-commits mailing list
> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20150214/58faea70/attachment.html>