[PATCH] D64939: Add a proposal for a libc project under the LLVM umbrella.

[JF Bastien via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

jfb added a subscriber: kubamracek.
jfb added a comment.

In D64939#1628710 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64939#1628710>, @lebedev.ri wrote:

> I still have big doubts about this. I fear this may have detrimental effect on the ecosystem at large.
>  (and i'm **quite** sure this is **not** just my personal opinion.)


These opinions were clearly expressed in the RFC. I'm not sure what can be done about them.

> At the very least, there should be some wording that will explicitly disallow lock-in into this library.
>  In particular, but not limited to, i'm worried about sanitizers, it may be really tempting to drop all the 
>  interceptors and just say "just build against llvm-libc, just like you already do with libc++".

That seems odd for libc docs to do: the sanitizer folks have shown extreme willingness to be open, even collaborating with GCC folks. Some platforms like the BSDs have the libc as part of the system libraries. I simply can't imagine sanitizer people changing their approach based on what's been done before, including sanitizer people working on BSD-like platforms. @kubamracek WDYT?

Really libc docs are a bad place to legislate how the sanitizer (a different sub-project) do things.

libc++ has no such wording either.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D64939/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D64939