[cfe-dev] libc++abi on linux

Ashok Nalkund ashoknn at qualcomm.com
Mon Jul 9 18:40:04 PDT 2012

On 7/9/2012 6:08 PM, Marshall Clow wrote:
> On Jul 9, 2012, at 5:46 PM, Nick Kledzik wrote:
>> On Jul 9, 2012, at 2:34 PM, Ashok Nalkund wrote:
>>> On 7/9/2012 2:11 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Ashok Nalkund <ashoknn at qualcomm.com
>>>> <mailto:ashoknn at qualcomm.com>> wrote:
>>>>    So could you suggest a replacement for unwind? libc++abi + libc++ still
>>>>    requires unwind.h, and my temporary solution is to pull it from gcc.
>>>> You could pull it from libunwind instead. Ultimately, it seems to me
>>>> that we should fix Clang's unwind.h to provide all the necessary
>>>> declarations. Is there any reason not to do so? The current
>>>> #include_next approach suggests that there might be some Darwin-specific
>>>> concerns there?
>>> But is that all, just the unwind.h? The libunwind projects (PathScale or
>>> nongnu website) provide more files and require compilation etc.
>> That is what I don't understand about this thread.  Is the problem that libgcc_s.so (which implements _Unwind_* functions) does not exits on these systems?  Or is the problem that the unwind header is missing?
> Either, or both. Or people don't want to use libgcc; which is, after all, GPL.
> AFAICT, Apple keeps libgcc_s around for old binaries built with gcc; binaries built with clang + libc++ don't use it.

I didnt know that libgcc_s.so implements the unwind.h, its more clear to 
me now, thanks. For me, the concern is that libgcc_s.so is GPL. So now 
the question is, is there a recommended replacement for libgcc_s.so?

More information about the cfe-dev mailing list