On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 8:24 PM Bruno Haible wrote:
>
> Weimin Pan wrote:
> > We came to design the SFrame format (The S stands for `simple') due to some
> > concrete requirements of a very big program that ships its own "online"
> > stack tracer and unwinder to handle error conditions:
> >
> >
Weimin Pan wrote:
> We came to design the SFrame format (The S stands for `simple') due to some
> concrete requirements of a very big program that ships its own "online"
> stack tracer and unwinder to handle error conditions:
>
> 1) They wanted something simple to decode and simple to compute.
On 11/17/22 13:35, Bruno Haible wrote:
Clang will surely not acquire knowledge about "every library", right,
only about the C library according to relevant standards (ISO C, POSIX)?
I don't know the Clang developers' plans. But if I wanted Clang to be
picky then yes, I'd have it know about
Paul Eggert wrote:
> > AC_CHECK_FUNC *should not* just probe for linkability of a symbol
>
> ... Autoconf cannot
> be expected to know every signature of every function in every library.
Clang will surely not acquire knowledge about "every library", right,
only about the C library according to
Hi Bruno,
Thanks for your comments.
On 11/15/2022 4:52 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
Hello Weimin,
The main use-case for this format are
"online" debugging tools like stack tracers
I'll appreciate anything that can help producing a universally working
backtrace for C, since experience (e.g. from
On 2022-11-16 10:59, Zack Weinberg wrote:
I'm generally in agreement with Rich Felker's argument
(inhttps://ewontfix.com/13/) that AC_CHECK_FUNC*should not* just probe for
linkability of a symbol
So am I. I'm not saying Autoconf should never change here, only that the
change would not be
On 2022-11-16 10:40, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
This line of arguments is not persuasive. It is full of logical fallacies.
... none of which you stated.
No matter how we solve the problem, it will be a hack that exploits
"logical fallacies" (whatever that means). However, a reaction "You
On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 7:44 PM Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 2022-11-11 07:11, Aaron Ballman wrote:
> > Clang doesn't require such a linker (we work with various system
> linkers).
>
> As long as the system linkers continue to work as they have
> traditionally worked, we're fine.
>
> > the frontend
Hello,
On Wed, 16 Nov 2022, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 2022-11-16 06:26, Michael Matz wrote:
> > char foobar(void);
> > int main(void) {
> >return != 0;
> > }
>
> That still has undefined behavior according to draft C23,
This is correct (and also holds for the actually working variant later,
