[cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] Bootstrapping clang/LLVM with ELLCC

Richard Pennington via cfe-dev cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Fri Dec 18 19:50:55 PST 2015

(Fixed the cfe email address)

On 12/18/2015 09:34 PM, Tim Northover wrote:
> On 18 December 2015 at 19:15, Richard Pennington via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> It turns out that it can with some simple patches.
> This sounds really cool. I think we should seriously consider putting
> these patches into LLVM mainline.
>> Information on building clang/LLVM with ELLCC is here:
>> http://ellcc.org/blog/?p=26397
> Here are some of my thoughts on the patch there, with a view to upstreaming:
>    * Large sections of the patch seem to be Makefile changes. Given
> that we're deprecating autoconf, a CMake equivalent will be needed.
I know. I'm scared to death of cmake, but I plan on moving there soon.
>    * Unconditionally #defining _BSD_SOURCE doesn't feel right.
I agree. I'll find a better way.

>    * #undefining libc symbols based on __ELCC__. This looks like a musl
> issue rather than just elcc. I'm actually rarther suspicious of musl
> here too: neither C99 nor C++11 reserve (e.g.) fopen64. That said,
> we've put in worse hacks to support broken platforms (see
> -fms-compatibility).
I'll talk to the musl guys about this. I don't think they like the idea 
of being referred to as a "broken platform".

>    * sys/time.h: not sure this exists on all systems. What are we using
> that depends on it and what guards does that source have?
I'll verify why this was added. It was a while ago.

>    * "and" as an operator? I know C allows it, but it's highly
> unidiomatic. </tiniest nit in the world>
I just copied what was already there. </tiniest rationalization in the 

> Cheers.
> Tim.

More information about the cfe-dev mailing list