Linux 4.19 Raises The GCC Minimum Version Required To Build The Kernel

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Linux 4.19 Raises The GCC Minimum Version Required To Build The Kernel

Officially the Linux kernel listed GCC 3.2 as the minimum version of the GNU compiler needed. However, with Linux 4.19 that is being raised to GCC 4.6...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...-GCC-Build-Req

[flower]

is there any reason why someone would want to build the kernel with clang? (except maybe kernel-devs for faster compile times and other benefits?)

from what i've heard it produces slower binaries

[davidbepo]

is there any reason why someone would want to build the kernel with clang? (except maybe kernel-devs for faster compile times and other benefits?)

from what i've heard it produces slower binaries

faster compile times are always beneficial and clang doesnt always produce slower binaries, sometimes they are faster

[cybertraveler]

is there any reason why someone would want to build the kernel with clang? (except maybe kernel-devs for faster compile times and other benefits?)

from what i've heard it produces slower binaries

Yes.

GNU/Linux is the proper name for what many people simply call "Linux". Some people want to exclude GNU from the name and reduce the general perception of relevance of GNU in the GNU/Linux operating system. For them, having the ability to compile the kernel without the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC), would make excluding GNU an easier task.

There are other benefits to other groups too, but that's one obvious one that comes to mind.

[caligula]

is there any reason why someone would want to build the kernel with clang? (except maybe kernel-devs for faster compile times and other benefits?)

from what i've heard it produces slower binaries

Might provide a better framework for compiler plugins and analysis.

[Nuc!eoN]

GNU/Linux is the proper name for what many people simply call "Linux". Some people want to exclude GNU from the name and reduce the general perception of relevance of GNU in the GNU/Linux operating system. For them, having the ability to compile the kernel without the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC), would make excluding GNU an easier task.

There are other benefits to other groups too, but that's one obvious one that comes to mind.

But do those groups have real lifes?

[jacob]

But do those groups have real lifes?

Seriously I have never seen any group like that in any meaningful form. I don't think they really exist outside of some forum trolls.

[campbell]

is there any reason why someone would want to build the kernel with clang? (except maybe kernel-devs for faster compile times and other benefits?)

from what i've heard it produces slower binaries

Even if you don't use clang, its mere existence has really lit a fire under gcc to do better, and you benefit from that. You may not remember how terrible gcc was ten years ago compared to now, in terms of optimisations, warnings, lots of little things. There was definitely a long stagnant period in gnu tools that ended around the time clang started to gain market share.

(glibc still has a lot of catching up to do though, particularly on arm)

[Templar82]

Seriously I have never seen any group like that in any meaningful form. I don't think they really exist outside of some forum trolls.

Well there have been a number of projects making a Linux OS without GNU stuff, but if you specifically mean "GNU haters" then I think they are just forum trolls.

[geearf]

is there any reason why someone would want to build the kernel with clang? (except maybe kernel-devs for faster compile times and other benefits?)

from what i've heard it produces slower binaries

Once it compiles, maybe it'll be able to be faster on this very project