Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Patch By Patch, LLVM Clang Gets Better At Building The Linux Kernel

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Patch By Patch, LLVM Clang Gets Better At Building The Linux Kernel

    Phoronix: Patch By Patch, LLVM Clang Gets Better At Building The Linux Kernel

    With each kernel revision, LLVM Clang gets closer to being able to build the mainline Linux kernel. There's now just a few dozen patches outstanding for LLVMLinux to be a mainline success...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTc3MDI

  • #2
    Considering that we've repeatedly been told that it's better to use GCC to compile the final binary that actually gets used, I'm assuming this endeavour is really only important to devs?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by phoronix View Post
      Phoronix: Patch By Patch, LLVM Clang Gets Better At Building The Linux Kernel

      With each kernel revision, LLVM Clang gets closer to being able to build the mainline Linux kernel. There's now just a few dozen patches outstanding for LLVMLinux to be a mainline success...

      http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTc3MDI
      Can't wait to see some benchmarks of GCC Kernel vs. Clang Kernel

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by kaprikawn View Post
        Considering that we've repeatedly been told that it's better to use GCC to compile the final binary that actually gets used, I'm assuming this endeavour is really only important to devs?
        That's true at the moment but it may not be true forever, especially since some GCC devs will be busy with the modularization and refactoring work that the GCC camp wants to do, meanwhile LLVM devs will be busy with performance improvements

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by kaprikawn View Post
          Considering that we've repeatedly been told that it's better to use GCC to compile the final binary that actually gets used, I'm assuming this endeavour is really only important to devs?
          By "the final binary" you mean the kernel binary, right.
          Anyway I don't give a flying banana about if LLVM compiles the Linux kernel, what 99.99% devs want for LLVM is a proper port to window$.

          Comment


          • #6
            LLVM and Clang are more liberally licensed.
            What? Allow large companies, like Apple, to privatize the code and use it as if it were unique creation; IT is have liberty?

            Clang shows to be really amazing , but the BSD license and the influence of Apple on code leaves me "on the back foot."

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by arrow View Post
              What? Allow large companies, like Apple, to privatize the code and use it as if it were unique creation; IT is have liberty?

              Clang shows to be really amazing , but the BSD license and the influence of Apple on code leaves me "on the back foot."
              I was waiting for this, now gotta wait for an anti-systemd troll to make my night.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by kaprikawn View Post
                Considering that we've repeatedly been told that it's better to use GCC to compile the final binary that actually gets used, I'm assuming this endeavour is really only important to devs?
                This endeavor is being undertaken so that companies can compile the kernel without using a GPLv3 compiler. It's important to them that they aren't permanently stuck on GCC4.2 for the rest of time.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by oneofone View Post
                  I was waiting for this, now gotta wait for an anti-systemd troll to make my night.
                  I'm a idealist and I find this offensive :P
                  I'm not a extremist, I just don't agree with BSD licenses and the how the big companies try to control FOSS, just because this represent a imminent problem for them...

                  BTW, I hate systemd! hahaha
                  Serious now, Clang seems to be really good and more structured then old GCC. Not because I do not agree with the license that I will not use it ... since this has the source code, it's OK.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by mark45 View Post
                    By "the final binary" you mean the kernel binary, right.
                    Anyway I don't give a flying banana about if LLVM compiles the Linux kernel, what 99.99% devs want for LLVM is a proper port to window$.
                    Those Windows devs should put their money where their mouth is, then.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by arrow View Post
                      What? Allow large companies, like Apple, to privatize the code and use it as if it were unique creation; IT is have liberty?

                      Clang shows to be really amazing , but the BSD license and the influence of Apple on code leaves me "on the back foot."
                      Sorry, but I'd pick LLVM any day over GCC. The problem with building GPL2/3 tainted binaries can be huge in enterprise environments. CLANG isi the fist compiler truly free for corporate use. Besides the error messages are better and better diagnostics and no RMS toenail intact in the legacy spaghetti code.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                        This endeavor is being undertaken so that companies can compile the kernel without using a GPLv3 compiler. It's important to them that they aren't permanently stuck on GCC4.2 for the rest of time.
                        Originally posted by caligula View Post
                        The problem with building GPL2/3 tainted binaries

                        Can you please explain to me what you mean by that. I don't understand what the license of the compiler/toolchain has to do with the generated binary code.

                        I even found this https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq...eGPLToolsForNF which says otherwise.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I must have missed the memo - what exactly is the problem with GPLv3 compiler?
                          AFAIK using GPLv3 gcc doesn't make your code GPL. In fact it should have no effect at all on the license of the compiled program.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by amehaye View Post
                            I must have missed the memo - what exactly is the problem with GPLv3 compiler?
                            AFAIK using GPLv3 gcc doesn't make your code GPL. In fact it should have no effect at all on the license of the compiled program.
                            Some companies cannot use gpl apps even internally so using LLVM is preferred in the long run. There are many such reasons. llvm might be technically better in a long run and also apple won't support gcc that is gpl3 licensed so it's a dead end on mac. They might fear the license hurts ide and plugin development (xcode). Also many companies ideologically hate gpl. Using gpl products when developing your own apps gives the impression you embrace stallman ideology.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by tajjada View Post
                              Can you please explain to me what you mean by that. I don't understand what the license of the compiler/toolchain has to do with the generated binary code.

                              I even found this https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq...eGPLToolsForNF which says otherwise.
                              I don't understand it either, but that doesn't change the fact that certain companies out there have policies which forbid their employees from ever using GPLv3 code. Apple is one such company. Lots of ARM vendors are others. They're the ones pushing for this, so they can run Android and have it be closer to upstream kernel, or just use the linux kernel directly with clang. For this reason Macs and BSDs generally only provide GCC 4.2 by default, and tell you to use LLVM if you want anything modern. (Although you can generally find newer GCC to install if you want).

                              I half suspect one lawyer somewhere didn't really understand the issue and took the paranoid route of banning it forever, and everyone else has just assumed they must have had a good reason for doing it, but who knows. Maybe there actually is a good reason, or maybe it's all just politics and they are refusing to support a license they don't want to see succeed.
                              Last edited by smitty3268; 08-23-2014, 08:42 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X