This defines a WinMain() function that can be potentially problematic when it
isn't wanted. If we add back support for this library in the future, it should
be built separately from mingw32.lib and on demand.
These are system DLLs, most of which MinGW provides .def files for. It just so
happens that MinGW also has some static libraries by the same name which link in
some GUID definitions.
The remaining non-MinGW library names represent libraries that are always
statically linked, so if those are requested by the user, it makes sense to
error if libc is not linked. A future enhancement could be to compile those
independent of mingw32.lib, however.
Closes#22560.
(With the exception of x86 since that was available from the beginning.)
These were determined by analyzing the full, reconstructed Git history of the
Linux kernel here: https://landley.net/kdocs/fullhist
This is, at least today, a very broken target: It doesn't actually build either
musl or wasi-libc even if you use -lc. It does give you musl headers, but that's
it. Those headers are not terribly useful, however, without any implementation
code. You can sort of call some math functions because they just so happen to
have implementations in compiler-rt. But that's only true for a small subset,
and I don't think users should be relying on the ABI surface of a library that
is an implementation detail of the compiler.
Clearly, a freestanding-capable libc of sorts is a useful thing as evidenced by
newlib, picolibc, etc existing. However, calling it "musl" is misleading when it
isn't actually musl-compatible, nor can it ever be because the musl API surface
is inextricably tied to the Linux kernel. In the discussion on #20690, there was
agreement that once we split up the API and ABI components in the target string,
the API component should be about compatibility, not whether you literally get a
particular implementation of it. Also, we decided that Linux musl and wasi-libc
musl shouldn't use the same API tag precisely because they're not actually
compatible.
(And besides, how would any syscall even be implemented in freestanding? Who or
what would we be calling?)
So I think we should remove this triple for now. If we decide to reintroduce
something like this, especially once #2879 gets going, we should come up with a
bespoke name for it rather than using "musl".
This is necessary since isGnuLibC() is true for hurd, so we need to be able to
represent a glibc version for it.
Also add an Os.TaggedVersionRange.gnuLibCVersion() convenience function.
Once we upgrade to LLVM 20, these should be lowered verbatim rather than to
simply musl. Similarly, the special case in llvmMachineAbi() should go away.
These are really answering questions about the Zig compiler's capacity to
provide a libc/libc++ implementation. As such, std.zig.target seems like a more
fitting place for these.
Grepping for `NO_THUMB` in glibc suggests that glibc does not actually support
pure Thumb-2 mode. This is the mode that is implied by these target triples;
mixed Arm/Thumb mode should just use the regular `arm*-linux-gnueabi*` triples.
This target triple was weird on multiple levels:
* The `ilp32` ABI is the soft float ABI. This is not the main ABI we want to
support on RISC-V; rather, we want `ilp32d`.
* `gnuilp32` is a bespoke tag that was introduced in Zig. The rest of the world
just uses `gnu` for RISC-V target triples.
* `gnu_ilp32` is already the name of an ILP32 ABI used on AArch64. `gnuilp32` is
too easy to confuse with this.
* We don't use this convention for `riscv64-linux-gnu`.
* Supporting all RISC-V ABIs with this convention will result in combinatorial
explosion; see #20690.
