[llvm-dev] A libc in LLVM

[Owen Anderson via llvm-dev]

> On Jun 27, 2019, at 2:53 PM, Saleem Abdulrasool via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> So, what do you think about incorporating this new libc under the LLVM project?
> 
> As stated, I really feel that this is far too specialised to certain use cases that are pertinent to Google.  I think that this needs to be broadened to allow a general purpose libc much as libc++ is a general C++ implementation.  I think that the project has a different set of requirements and seems like it would be extremely interesting to see how it would develop over time.  This could really be an interesting choice for a certain type of project but as described feels like it is best explored outside of the umbrella of LLVM.
> 

I don't have a strong stake in this decision, but Saleem's commentary matches my thoughts on the topic.  Maybe some of this is related to messaging - would the proposed project be *an* LLVM libc or *the* LLVM libc.  There is already at least one instance within the LLVM umbrella where a subproject designed and built to a particular set of constraints became *the* LLVM solution, and ended up disincentivizing investment from contributors whose priorities didn't match those constraints.  Staking the blessed-by-LLVM slot for a piece of the toolchain is not free.

To turn the question around, why should *this* libc (assuming it will be built whether or not LLVM accepts it) be *the* LLVM libc?

--Owen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190627/1608dc2e/attachment.html>