Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • #11
    Originally posted by Templar82 View Post

    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.
    There has been talk about such projects but AFAIK it never went anywhere, probably because there is basically no reason for it. Linux itself (as in, the kernel) is and always will be GPL, which is a very good thing, so there is basically no way to separate it from GNU and turn it into something like a BSD system anyway.
    Last edited by jacob; 21 August 2018, 12:02 AM. Reason: Corrected typo

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by jacob View Post

      There has been talk about such projects but AFAIK it never went anywhere, probably because there is basically no reason for it. Linux itself (as in, the kernel) is and always will be GPL, which is a very good thing, so there is basically no way to separate it from GNU and turn it into something like a BSD system anyway.
      Good point on the GPL, there is no avoiding that.

      I simply meant things like Alpine Linux that use musl and BusyBox rather than glibc and coreutils,
      or shotlived projects with people using the Linux kernel with BSD userland tools, of which a number have come and gone.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by Templar82 View Post

        Good point on the GPL, there is no avoiding that.

        I simply meant things like Alpine Linux that use musl and BusyBox rather than glibc and coreutils,
        or shotlived projects with people using the Linux kernel with BSD userland tools, of which a number have come and gone.
        I think BusyBox is absolutely not motivated by some anti-GNU grievance, it's a project designed to address a very specific use case that the GNU environment doesn't cover. In that sense it's not meant to replace GNU but rather supplement it.

        Alpine Linux, with all due respect, seems to me like a hobby project. The various Linux/BSD ideas etc., have come and gone, as you say. Linux and GNU are here to stay and those who find the GPL unfathomable for them can always use nonfree systems, or BSD.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by Templar82 View Post

          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.
          Yeah, Google has "excluded GNU" just fine on Android even without switchign to CLANG

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by jacob View Post
            Alpine Linux, with all due respect, seems to me like a hobby project. The various Linux/BSD ideas etc., have come and gone, as you say. Linux and GNU are here to stay and those who find the GPL unfathomable for them can always use nonfree systems, or BSD.
            Sorry but "hobby project" is what I would use for Devuan or Void Linux or Bodhi Linux or XFCE or MATE or similar.

            Alpine isn't more hobby than Arch or Mint for the very least, it does see production use too in containers.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by cybertraveler View Post
              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.
              Right, except Kernel developers have better things to do than plot conspiracies.

              Clang / LLVM has other benefits beyond compile times, like a much more modern tooling.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by flower View Post
                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
                Some official technical reasons often mentioned (https://blog.linuxplumbersconf.org/2...%20kernels.pdf) are:

                ● Consistent toolchain for kernel and userspace
                ● Better static analysis + dynamic analysis (sanitizers)
                ● Additional compiler warning flag coverage
                ● More tools planned in the future (control-flow analysis, LTO, PGO)
                ● Shake out undefined behaviors
                ● Improve both code bases
                More realistically speaking, clang/llvm lets vendors keep more stuff closed source while still targeting linux. Quite essential when every Tom, Dick and Harry in heavy silicon is developing their own x86 successors.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by c117152 View Post
                  More realistically speaking, clang/llvm lets vendors keep more stuff closed source while still targeting linux. Quite essential when every Tom, Dick and Harry in heavy silicon is developing their own x86 successors.
                  err... i have read that list. that's why i thought it's only useful for kernel developers.
                  but where did you get from that it helps in getting closed source stuff in the kernel?

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by debianxfce View Post
                    The latest Linux kernel has always compiled with latest Debian gcc. gcc (Debian 8.2.0-4) 8.2.0 currently.
                    Yes. It's more often that C++ projects tend to break with new GCC versions than ones written in C.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by msotirov View Post
                      Right, except Kernel developers have better things to do than plot conspiracies.
                      I didn't say or even suggest that there were or could be plotting kernel devs. I just pointed out that some people dislike referring to the system by its proper name and seemingly enjoy promoting it as just 'Linux'. Some of those people would benefit from a kernel that can be compiled without GCC. They'd have an easier job of promoting the OS using their preferred term. That could serve as motivation for an individual to work on, use or otherwise support such an effort. No group plot is needed.

                      Also: a conspiracy implies something bad or illegal is being done. I didn't say that removing 'GNU' from the name would be bad. I think people who say that GNU/Linux is just 'Linux' are factually incorrect. I don't think they are bad and they are certainly not criminals.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X