Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: Developers Keep Striving To Build The Linux Kernel With LLVM Clang

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,643

    Default Developers Keep Striving To Build The Linux Kernel With LLVM Clang

    Phoronix: Developers Keep Striving To Build The Linux Kernel With LLVM Clang

    With another Linux Foundation Summit means another time to hear an update about LLVMLinux, the Linux Foundation backed project to build the mainline Linux kernel with LLVM's Clang C/C++ compiler in place of GCC...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTY0NDg

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    108

    Default

    Seems to be it is not an easy job, but the final result will be interesting.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Utriusque Siciliae Regnum
    Posts
    48

    Thumbs down They will hardly succeed

    At least sounds scary to me: dynamically changing execution paths at the kernel level.
    Anything that could go wrong, will gain new interesting ways to badly fail.
    In my opinion.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    665

    Default

    How do the patches affect performance?
    I guess GCC can compile the patched version too, so maybe someone can benchmark the vanilla vs patched kernel (both compile by gcc with same options) to see if there is a reason not to upstream the patches?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    291

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erendorn View Post
    How do the patches affect performance?
    I guess GCC can compile the patched version too, so maybe someone can benchmark the vanilla vs patched kernel (both compile by gcc with same options) to see if there is a reason not to upstream the patches?
    You'd have to write a benchmark to target each of the patched areas... normal benchmarks may not show any differences but some people probably need the proformance provided by these optimizations.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cb88 View Post
    You'd have to write a benchmark to target each of the patched areas... normal benchmarks may not show any differences but some people probably need the proformance provided by these optimizations.
    These "optimizations" are non-standard C code (GCC specific). I would rather have standardized C code than relying on a single compiler that creates a subset of C...
    Yes, performance matters, but so does keeping everything Open and giving people a choice in what software they use (compilers included)

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daktyl198 View Post
    These "optimizations" are non-standard C code (GCC specific). I would rather have standardized C code than relying on a single compiler that creates a subset of C...[...]
    Wouldn't it be superset? A subset would be more compatible with other compilers.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erendorn View Post
    How do the patches affect performance?
    I guess GCC can compile the patched version too, so maybe someone can benchmark the vanilla vs patched kernel (both compile by gcc with same options) to see if there is a reason not to upstream the patches?
    I think the main reason to not include these patches is because they will make code uglier. Linux uses some gcc extensions which clang doesn't support. Linux devs don't want to rewrite code in standard c and clang devs don't want to support these extensions. At least this is what I remeber from previous Phoronix articles/discussions.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chinoto View Post
    Wouldn't it be superset? A subset would be more compatible with other compilers.
    Yes, thanks for that correction. I often forget about the word "superset"

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daktyl198 View Post
    These "optimizations" are non-standard C code (GCC specific). I would rather have standardized C code than relying on a single compiler that creates a subset of C...
    Yes, performance matters, but so does keeping everything Open and giving people a choice in what software they use (compilers included)
    You can not write a kernel with standard C. The only reason Clang can even build it with these patches is because they already have support for most GCC extensions.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •