Conversation

🤔

an I wonder: would the LLVM libc be written in C++? Also, what would you call it? llibc? Logical next step is to have an LLVM kernel. What would you call that kernel? It would certainly be low-level, and would handle virtual machines (as well as virtual memory).

Quote Tweet

LLVM Weekly

@llvmweekly

Jun 25, 2019

Is it time for an LLVM libc? The Google LLVM team are collecting feedback lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm

Replying to

There could be so many more interesting LLVM projects to solve problems with existing platforms! - LLDE - the LLVM Desktop Environment - ALLSA - the Advanced LLVM Sound Architecture

Replying to

and

LLVM/Linux

Replying to

and

WSLL

Replying to

and

I wish I could take this as light-heartedly as yousall do, but Google already has its own libc, Bionic, and it's the crappiest of the crap software you can imagine calling itself a libc. They should work on perhaps improving that instead of polluting the space with one more.

Replying to

I totally agree it's ridiculous, especially when musl already exists and seems like it serves all their stated needs?

Replying to

It doesn't serve their unstated need for Google to have control.

Replying to

Yeah, they could at least be forthright about their motivations. Even then, why involve LLVM at all? They already have Bionic, why not fix that?

Replying to

Bionic is very specific to Android. It doesn't implement functionality not used on the platform like a POSIX user/group database, non-PIE executables and many other things. It's built on things specific to the platform too (DNS resolution via netd, system properties, API level).

Replying to

A lot of it is just taken directly from OpenBSD libc (all of stdio, etc.) and FreeBSD (libm). If musl had been around when they started, I think they'd have started from there instead of making a *BSD derived libc with Linux system calls and some Android specific functionality.

9:24 PM · Jun 25, 2019Twitter Web Client