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. > > 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
