[PATCH] Introduce the idea of a minimum libc version

[Saleem Abdulrasool]

On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 12:17 PM, David Majnemer <david.majnemer at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>

The GNU part of the triple tells you that you are using {,e}glibc.  Most
linux distros/builds will use an alternative environment if they are using
uclibc (traditionally, uclibc).  So:

*-linux-gnu*: {,e}glibc
*-linux-uclibc*: uclibc
*-linux-*: no libc
*-android: bionic

Yes, triples are a mess, but that is the world we live in.

That said, this is generic infrastructure, so, the specifics of Linux
aren't really applicable to this change IMO.


>
>>
>> ismail
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-commits mailing list
>> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-commits mailing list
> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>

-- 
Saleem Abdulrasool
compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20150214/6e2a1f82/attachment.html>