Originally posted by Templar82
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Linux 4.19 Raises The GCC Minimum Version Required To Build The Kernel
Collapse
X
-
- Likes 2
-
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.
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.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
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.
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
-
Originally posted by jacob View PostAlpine 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.
Alpine isn't more hobby than Arch or Mint for the very least, it does see production use too in containers.
Comment
-
Originally posted by cybertraveler View PostGNU/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.
Clang / LLVM has other benefits beyond compile times, like a much more modern tooling.
Comment
-
Originally posted by flower View Postis 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
● 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
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by c117152 View PostMore 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.
but where did you get from that it helps in getting closed source stuff in the kernel?
Comment
-
Originally posted by msotirov View PostRight, except Kernel developers have better things to do than plot conspiracies.
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
Comment