On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 12:17 PM, David Majnemer <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:54 AM, İsmail Dönmez <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 9:20 PM, David Majnemer >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Er, I don't see how "libc version" is a meaningful thing on linux. The >> presumption of which libc implementation is not baked into the triple. >> > >> >> This makes sense on Linux too. See >> >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20131223/199910.html >> where this kind of information would be useful. >> > > Again, I don't see how we can assume linux == glibc. I'm pretty sure > r198093 is conservatively correct but not precisely correct. > The GNU part of the triple tells you that you are using {,e}glibc. Most linux distros/builds will use an alternative environment if they are using uclibc (traditionally, uclibc). So: *-linux-gnu*: {,e}glibc *-linux-uclibc*: uclibc *-linux-*: no libc *-android: bionic Yes, triples are a mess, but that is the world we live in. That said, this is generic infrastructure, so, the specifics of Linux aren't really applicable to this change IMO. > >> >> ismail >> _______________________________________________ >> cfe-commits mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >> > > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits > -- Saleem Abdulrasool compnerd (at) compnerd (dot) org
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
