| 1 |
On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 12:29:40 +0100 |
| 2 |
"M. Ziebell" <ziebell_marco@××××××.de> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Am Mon, 27 Oct 2014 12:10:51 +0100 |
| 5 |
> schrieb Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o>: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 12:07:25 +0100 |
| 8 |
> > "M. Ziebell" <ziebell_marco@××××××.de> wrote: |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > > Does clang compile glibc already? |
| 11 |
> > > At the last GNU Cauldron the speaker said that clang fails because |
| 12 |
> > > of:[1] |
| 13 |
> > > - nested functions |
| 14 |
> > > - VLAIS |
| 15 |
> > > |
| 16 |
> > > How did you avoid that problem? |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > by using freebsd's libc :) |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> > only problem I can recall is openssl which has been fixed recently |
| 23 |
> > afaik |
| 24 |
> > |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> So glibic is a show stopper or we talk about switching the libc too? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
it is, but you are the one talking about glibc, I was talking about |
| 30 |
gentoo/freebsd :) |
Archives