EricWF added a comment. In http://reviews.llvm.org/D16948#444009, @rmaprath wrote:
> Would you / community be open to the idea of hiding the os syscalls behind an > API? (like we are doing for pthreads)? Yes I would be very open to that. Then I could also have test shims in order to test truly exceptional cases. > I think this is the only way we could get at least some of this functionality > working on bare-metal ARM (it should work on arm-linux without much trouble - > I think). How much work do you think this refactoring would need? I'm happy > to do that after you land the patch. It shouldn't be that much work to get `path`, `directory_iterator` and `recursive_directory_iterator` working. They have like 4 system calls in there implementation. The rest of the TS is just a set of free functions. Each uses a separate system call for the most part. However the API is very simple and you can pick and choose which functions you want to support. > I will see if I can try this out on arm-linux, as soon as I resolve this > fedora20 mystery of mine :) > > Cheers, > > / Asiri http://reviews.llvm.org/D16948 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
