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

[Siva Chandra via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

sivachandra added a comment.

In D64939#1593143 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D64939#1593143>, @jfb wrote:

> There are some things in the libc++ docs that I think would be good to follow here: https://libcxx.llvm.org/docs/


I have actually used the libc++ documentation as a template but wrote it like a proposal. I feel that some of the items like status, platform support etc would be meaningful within the llvm-libc documentation after we make some progress with the implementation.

Do you have any specific items in mind that should be included?



================
Comment at: llvm/docs/Proposals/LLVMLibC.rst:25
+  upgrade of the C11 standard, llvm-libc is effectively C11 and
+  upwards conformant.
+- A modular libc with individual pieces implemented in the "as a
----------------
jfb wrote:
> I'd drop this part: "llvm-libc is effectively C11 and upwards conformant."
> I think it's mostly true, but not worth promising.
> 
> I do wonder: will it require passing `-std=c17` or later? That's mostly how libc++ works: the C++17 library features require C++17 language.
I would think the public headers will use certain C11/C17 features requiring user code to be compiled with -std=c17.


================
Comment at: llvm/docs/Proposals/LLVMLibC.rst:28
+  library" philosophy of the LLVM project.
+- Ability to layer this libc over the system libc.
+- Provide C symbols as specified by the standards, but take advantage
----------------
jfb wrote:
> I think this is still pretty tentative, based on mailing list comments. Maybe say so here?
Reworded it now to say that we will provide this ability only if possible and desired for a platform.


================
Comment at: llvm/docs/Proposals/LLVMLibC.rst:37
+  testing like fuzz testing and sanitizer-supported testing.
+- ABI independent implementation as far as possible.
+- Use source based implementations as far possible rather than
----------------
jfb wrote:
> Will it be ABI-stable? Maybe it's worth expanding on how the ABI will evolve, and what will be stable.
I am not sure how exactly to word it here. Do you have any suggestions on what the ABI promise should be and what exactly to say in a proposal like this?


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

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

https://reviews.llvm.org/D64939