[libcxx-commits] [PATCH] D81602: [libc++] Provide SEM_VALUE_MAX fallback on Solaris

Louis Dionne via Phabricator via libcxx-commits libcxx-commits at lists.llvm.org
Thu Jun 11 08:14:19 PDT 2020

ldionne added a comment.

In D81602#2087403 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D81602#2087403>, @ro wrote:

> Where are such requirements documented?  Nothing like this has ever come up with my Solaris patches to `llvm`, `clang`, or `compiler-rt`.
> That said, I **do** maintain both Solaris/SPARC <http://lab.llvm.org:8014/builders/clang-solaris11-sparcv9> and Solaris/x86 <http://lab.llvm.org:8014/builders/clang-solaris11-amd64> buildbots.  However, I certainly cannot commit to full-time maintenance of LLVM on
>  Solaris in addition to my Solaris GCC maintainership in my copious spare time: such a claim would deceive both myself and others.  If that's
>  a requirement for accepting any Solaris patches, please say so up front so I can avoid wasting both your and my time.  However, that should be a
>  matter of LLVM project policy, not the personal preference of an individual maintainer.

Let's put it that way: as far as I can tell, this code is dead, so this patch isn't adding anything beyond technical debt. And the reason why it's dead is that there are no *libc++* build bots set up for Solaris, and no maintainer actively working on supporting that platform AFAICT.

JF made the comment he made because I recently complained to him about how the maintenance burden for libc++ is both huge and also rests on the shoulder of too few. The main reason for the burden being so large is that we try to support a high number of system configurations and sub-configurations of libc++ (like no-threads, no-stdio, etc.), and we also tend to bend backwards instead of requesting that systems conform to e.g. POSIX in a more stringent way. That's unfortunately part of a discussion that needs to happen and that is much larger than this patch, but my point is that libc++ needs to start dropping workarounds for systems that are not actively supported, not add new ones.

Going back to the patch itself -- is there any reason why `<limits.h>` can't define `SEM_VALUE_MAX` on Solaris? That's the right way of solving this problem.

  rG LLVM Github Monorepo



More information about the libcxx-commits mailing list