> On Dec 17, 2015, at 10:16 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger via cfe-commits > <cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 11:59:10PM +0000, Bob Wilson via cfe-commits wrote: >> We can change this to be Darwin-specific if you prefer, but we should >> maintain compatibility with GCC and previous Clang releases in this behavior. > > Who is really affected by this? I don't care too much about obscure > Darwin hacks, but I really wonder why it isn't better to just explicitly > add -fno-PIC (e.g. when building a kernel module). It's not like that > will break on older versions of GCC or Clang.
Apple has internal projects that are failing to build. This behavior has been in places for many years and I don’t even know how we could find all the people relying on this behavior. Yes, we could break them and force everyone to add -fno-PIC, but typically when we make disruptive and incompatible changes like that, we need to stage the changes and give people a transition plan. For example, we could keep the old behavior but add a warning about the change, something like “warning: -static may be changed in future versions of clang to stop implying -fno-PIC”. After a year or two, we could then go ahead with the change. That is all a lot of work and there needs to be some significant benefit to justify breaking compatibility with older compilers. I don’t see any significant benefit here. It’s a 2-line change to the driver. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
