Decoupling GCC From Debian By Using LLVM/Clang

[Mr_Alien_Overlord]

One step closer to my dream...

...Of releasing "Linux/Linux", the Linux *Operating System* without a single line of FSF code, so they'll finally have to shut up about why everything should be Gnu/MyToiletPaper etc. Or maybe I should call it "Linus Is My God/Linux"... or maybe "I Hate Freedom / Linux"....

Hmmm... the possibilities are endless...

(PS, Believe it or not but I actually respect the work the FSF did on the GPL etc. It's just this naming thing that's stupid and ignores that "Gay" no longer only means "very happy", "Twitter" isn't just a sound birds make, "Linux" is no longer "just" a kernel etc.)


</trolling>



DISCLAIMER: Any advice offered may be used in the forthcoming conquest of your species. Alien Overlord Enterprises inc. take no responsibility for the loss of species, fauna, or planets resulting from replies to this post.

[smitty3268]

Do we have a GPL alternative to Clang?

Yes, it's called GCC.

[bachinchi]

Do we have a GPL alternative to Clang? Like LibreLLVMcompiler.? Is there any possibility for a portable GCC (GCC5 for example)?

What are you talking about?

[XorEaxEax]

Do we have a GPL alternative to Clang? Like LibreLLVMcompiler.? Is there any possibility for a portable GCC (GCC5 for example)?

Ehh... what?

[artivision]

Do we have a GPL alternative to Clang? Like LibreLLVMcompiler.? Is there any possibility for a portable GCC (GCC5 for example)?

[XorEaxEax]

The fact that there is nesting is the issue, not the depth of it. The issue is that nested functions are illegal in both C and C++.

If by illegal you mean not working in standard C as is true for all compiler extensions, even those supported by Clang/LLVM. The reason they are 'extensions' is because they implement functionality outside of the standard specs. Of course lots of functionality that ended up in the official standards started out as extensions.

Now, if you use said extensions you need a compiler which supports them, the Linux kernel for instance make lots of use of compiler extensions simply because they want functionality not provided within the C standards. GCC has exensions, Clang/LLVM has extensions, ICC has extensions, Visual Studio has extensions, etc

So either Clang/LLVM support these extensions which programmers have chosen to make use of, or the code must be rewritten to work without the unsupported extensions.

[ryao]

If Clang can't handle deeply nested functions that sounds like a bug to me and that the LLVM/Clang developers should address that issue as well as meshing with the existing glibc or providing the necessary patches to glibc that allow LLVM/Clang to build it yet not prevent other compilers from building it

The fact that there is nesting is the issue, not the depth of it. The issue is that nested functions are illegal in both C and C++.

[AnonymousCoward]

If Clang can't handle deeply nested functions that sounds like a bug to me

No it's not, nested functions are a gcc extension.

[DeepDayze]

Can Clang/LLVM build an unpatched mainline Linux kernel yet?

AFAICT it can't. If Clang can build a kernel without requiring patches to the kernel sources that's the best thing

[DeepDayze]

This is exactly what we are doing in Gentoo:

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=408963

Is it even possible to build Debian from source code as an end user?

GRUB makes heavy use of nested functions, which makes it impossible to build with Clang without doing a complete rewrite. Then there are other issues with glibc and a few other core packages. This is from my experience with Gentoo.

If Clang can't handle deeply nested functions that sounds like a bug to me and that the LLVM/Clang developers should address that issue as well as meshing with the existing glibc or providing the necessary patches to glibc that allow LLVM/Clang to build it yet not prevent other compilers from building it