sivachandra added a comment. In D97736#2605432 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D97736#2605432>, @echristo wrote:
> In addition to the bikeshed below, I'm not a huge fan of this in general. I > think we should assume that the libc we link is complete and thus it would > just be named "libc.<ext>" and in a sysroot somewhere. Another option is > perhaps looking at the rtlib option, but I'd want to see a bit of a writeup > there so we can see what we'd be doing. I missed responding to the "writeup" part earlier. But, I am not sure what I should be writing about. I feel that there is some confusion that this option can be used to switch between libcs. As I said in the earlier reply, the idea is not to provide a way to switch between libcs. Rather, the goal is to provide a way to use LLVM libc along with the system libc with the effect that LLVM libc symbols will be preferred by the linker over the system libc symbols. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D97736/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D97736 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
