Re: [PATCH] D7642: Introduce the idea of a minimum libc version

majnemer added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D7642#224225, @compnerd wrote: > AIUI, ucrt is absolutely relevant since msvcrt itself has been split out into > the ucrt. msvcrt is the "shared" common bits, while the ucrt is more > "platform" specific bits. > > But really, the point is: s

Re: [PATCH] D7642: Introduce the idea of a minimum libc version

We could support that by allowing the MSVC version in the triple to be different from the -fms-compatibility-version on the command line. Today, this might even with with --target. That said, I don't imagine many people are doing this. Microsoft makes it hard for you to do this, and lots of code a

Re: [PATCH] D7642: Introduce the idea of a minimum libc version

compnerd added a comment. AIUI, ucrt is absolutely relevant since msvcrt itself has been split out into the ucrt. msvcrt is the "shared" common bits, while the ucrt is more "platform" specific bits. But really, the point is: supporting an older version with a newer compiler is what doing this

Re: [PATCH] D7642: Introduce the idea of a minimum libc version

majnemer added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D7642#223489, @compnerd wrote: > Okay, if thats the general pattern, then we can stick it in the triple. > Though, that means that the use of the triple for determining the MS > compatibility needs to be undone. If the version in the triple

Re: [PATCH] D7642: Introduce the idea of a minimum libc version

compnerd added a comment. Okay, if thats the general pattern, then we can stick it in the triple. Though, that means that the use of the triple for determining the MS compatibility needs to be undone. If the version in the triple is the libc version, then it can differ from the MS compatibili

Re: [PATCH] D7642: Introduce the idea of a minimum libc version

majnemer added a comment. I think it would be inconsistent with the other platforms which have this version information. The platforms which have an environment version stick it in the triple (Android, MSVC) and the platforms which have an OS version also stick it in the triple (Darwin, iOS, O

Re: [PATCH] D7642: Introduce the idea of a minimum libc version

compnerd added a comment. Yes, we *could*. Its just a matter of how it is being specified. I find that having the separate option is potentially cleaner than stuffing it in the triple (which does get pushed into the metadata), and then parsing it back out as a value. I think that this is som

Re: [PATCH] D7642: Introduce the idea of a minimum libc version

majnemer added a comment. We already support a version for the environment in the triple, can we just use that? Repository: rL LLVM http://reviews.llvm.org/D7642 ___ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-b

Re: [PATCH] D7642: Introduce the idea of a minimum libc version

compnerd added a comment. -gnu implies GLIBC. Traditionally, -uclibc is used instead of -gnu for uclibc environments, and many (most?) Linux distros use -musl to indicate a MUSL environment. For Android, the environment is -android, and thus, assumed to be bionic. If the OS is BSD, usually,