From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/918 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Pennington Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: A little more progress today with clang/LLVM Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 06:30:15 -0500 Message-ID: <20292255.R6gnMuUDLb@main.pennware.com> References: <6099278.PLLg0Rc9Yf@main.pennware.com> <4664782.yKXjK5ZdZo@main.pennware.com> <20120525230938.GZ163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1338031894 11567 80.91.229.3 (26 May 2012 11:31:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 11:31:34 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-919-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sat May 26 13:31:33 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SYFDU-0006GA-1b for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 26 May 2012 13:31:28 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 26498 invoked by uid 550); 26 May 2012 11:31:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 26489 invoked from network); 26 May 2012 11:31:27 -0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=PqgRnnw3 c=1 sm=0 a=/l7PkcR/UKDnn7Q2wmGJww==:17 a=hdNgKtvFP3AA:10 a=fR_ARpL9IlcA:10 a=gQu5c9skE_AA:10 a=msTO8fkKGJEA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=N4Ps669bAAAA:8 a=1jQUBG0CyYzbwWeJ9bUA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=/l7PkcR/UKDnn7Q2wmGJww==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 65.26.59.215 User-Agent: KMail/4.8.3 (Linux/3.3.2-6.fc16.x86_64; KDE/4.8.3; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20120525230938.GZ163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:918 Archived-At: On Friday, May 25, 2012 07:09:38 PM Rich Felker wrote: > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 01:56:56PM -0500, Richard Pennington wrote: > > I've done a little hacking on alltypes.h.sh which I'm in the process of > > > > testing. I have two goals: > > 1. Make it work with clang's headers. > > Can you explain what the issue is? Are you talking about issues > building clang itself, or building programs against musl using clang? > In the latter case, musl does not use or support using > compiler-provided headers. All of the standard headers are provided > fully by musl. This is good to know. I'll stop using the compiler supplied headers. [snip] > One thing that _would_ work for these __typeof__ cases is to put it > under __GNUC__, which encompasses ALL compilers that have "GNU C" > extensions like typeof. That would definitely be an acceptable change, > but unless there are any compilers where it's necessary, I'd rather > just leave the types explicit for the arch's ABI. One of the most > frustrating things with glibc headers is never being able to figure > out the actual underlying definition of a type, and I'd like not to > recreate that frustration. You've convinced me. ;-) > > A couple things I'm _NOT_ happy about in my current system are that > the whole alltypes.h gets parsed again and again even (for each header > that includes it) even if only a few types are needed each time. One > thing I'm considering (but not yet decided on) is dropping it and > instead having the build system generate all the headers from > templates when musl is built, and put the expanded TYPEDEF templates > right in the headers that use them. > > In any case, for now don't worry about the potential > ugliness/duplication in alltypes.h.sh for new archs. It's not a large > file (the bits/*.h headers are much worse when it comes to > duplication) and I'm happy to take responsibility for cleaning them > all up later if a better system is devised. > OK, and thanks for being patient. I'm still trying to absorb the musl philosophy. -Rich