| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Would you support a Gentoo move to clang/LLVM |
| Yes |
|
78% |
[ 156 ] |
| No |
|
21% |
[ 42 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 198 |
|
| Author |
Message |
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1246
Location: Idaho, USA
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:14 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| So what C library are we trying this with? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cokey
Advocate
Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3343
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wswartzendruber wrote: | | So what C library are we trying this with? |
avx wants dietlibc, most are ok with dietlibc or uClibc. I dont think curie is full-featured enough (from what magnus tells me).
That does raise a question, with all these embedded C libraries, are they ideal for the job and complete enough?
_________________
"Sex: breakfast of champions" - James Hunt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1246
Location: Idaho, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cokehabit wrote: | | wswartzendruber wrote: | | So what C library are we trying this with? |
avx wants dietlibc, most are ok with dietlibc or uClibc. I dont think curie is full-featured enough (from what magnus tells me).
That does raise a question, with all these embedded C libraries, are they ideal for the job and complete enough? |
I think we should target a single C library and focus our efforts on it alone.
EDIT: And what are we using to replace Make and all them? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cokey
Advocate
Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3343
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wswartzendruber wrote: | | cokehabit wrote: | | wswartzendruber wrote: | | So what C library are we trying this with? |
avx wants dietlibc, most are ok with dietlibc or uClibc. I dont think curie is full-featured enough (from what magnus tells me).
That does raise a question, with all these embedded C libraries, are they ideal for the job and complete enough? |
I think we should target a single C library and focus our efforts on it alone.
EDIT: And what are we using to replace Make and all them? |
leave them? Bsd ones?
No-one is saying "no GNU", just less bloat and less reliance on GNU
_________________
"Sex: breakfast of champions" - James Hunt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djdunn
l33t
Joined: 26 Dec 2004
Posts: 770
Location: Arrakis
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Use the best available imo
if microsoft made the best free libraries in the world i would use them but they dont so i dont
_________________
A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it.
-The First Law of Mentat |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
syntropy
n00b
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Posts: 8
Location: Western Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| /me should really get around to actually pushing some code to his new userland libraries/tools. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cokey
Advocate
Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3343
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| syntropy wrote: | | /me should really get around to actually pushing some code to his new userland libraries/tools. |
well bloody start putting a system together! 
_________________
"Sex: breakfast of champions" - James Hunt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1246
Location: Idaho, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 1:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Grrr... You can't compile C and C++ to bitcode! Oh well, like it matters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John R. Graham
Administrator
Joined: 08 Mar 2005
Posts: 10142
Location: Somewhere over Atlanta, Georgia
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bitcode?
- John
_________________
I can confirm that I have received between 0 and 499 National Security Letters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1246
Location: Idaho, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John R. Graham wrote: | Bitcode?
- John |
Bitcode is to LLVM as bytecode is to Java. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swirling_vortex
n00b
Joined: 12 Jun 2007
Posts: 21
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 5:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hmm, maybe the Gentoo/FreeBSD port has some use after all... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1246
Location: Idaho, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 5:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It would be neat if LLVM-GCC was exposed in gcc-config. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tylerwylie
Guru
Joined: 19 Sep 2004
Posts: 458
Location: /US/Georgia
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 5:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://llvm.org/demo/index.cgi
Cool little web demo.
_________________
| Quote: | | It is with people as with trees. The more one seeks to rise into height and light, the more vigorously do ones roots struggle earthward, downward, into the dark, the deep — into evil. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Cosby
Guru
Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Posts: 430
Location: Aachen, Germany
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
avx
Advocate
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 2150
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mh, I'd like to compile everything in portage except @system with ICC/glibc for starters, someone got an idea how to best do this? chroot? VM? System would be a Core i7 with 16GB and 2TB free space as of now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ant P.
Watchman
Joined: 18 Apr 2009
Posts: 5281
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It'd be nice to have eglibc as an option. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pigeon768
l33t
Joined: 02 Jan 2006
Posts: 675
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wswartzendruber wrote: | | It would be neat if LLVM-GCC was exposed in gcc-config. |
IIRC llvm-gcc is not well supported. Most of the development effort is behind clang.
When gcc 4.5 is released, dragonegg might be worth looking into.
I don't think replacing gcc with llvm will make systems faster or more stable. Replacing glibc with something like uclibc would, but that would break all sorts of shit. There is no drop in replacement for glibc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dr.Willy
Guru
Joined: 15 Jul 2007
Posts: 459
Location: NRW, Germany
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 1:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| avx wrote: | | I'd love to kick out gcc, I'm actually quite happy with ICC (for what it compiles, that is) and since LLVM seems promising, I'd go for it. |
Seconded.
I have clang installed and use it wo build my (few) C programs. I'd be in for testing compilation of my system with clang.
| avx wrote: | | On the other hand, I don't think that'll ever happen on Gentoo. I remember, how I requested to drop BASH about three years ago and the answers only been "no want do, to much work". |
Well, going from bash to sh would be a step forward imo.
| cokehabit wrote: | | heh, Gentoo2 or Gentootoo |
Gentwo would get my vote  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cokey
Advocate
Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3343
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dr.Willy wrote: | | cokehabit wrote: | | heh, Gentoo2 or Gentootoo |
Gentwo would get my vote |
It would have to be Gentootwo then
_________________
"Sex: breakfast of champions" - James Hunt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aidanjt
Veteran
Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1104
Location: Rep. of Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cokehabit wrote: | | I dont think curie is full-featured enough (from what magnus tells me). |
Curie isn't at all intended to be a libc replacement.
It'd probably be better to start a new one from scratch, and just do it properly.
_________________
| juniper wrote: | | you experience political reality dilation when travelling at american political speeds. it's in einstein's formulas. it's not their fault. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1246
Location: Idaho, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Am I wrong to say that if glibc isn't portable then it's broken? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
syntropy
n00b
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Posts: 8
Location: Western Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AidanJT wrote: | | cokehabit wrote: | | I dont think curie is full-featured enough (from what magnus tells me). |
Curie isn't at all intended to be a libc replacement.
It'd probably be better to start a new one from scratch, and just do it properly. |
That's the trick to it all though. (Emphasis mine.)
| wswartzendruber wrote: | | Am I wrong to say that if glibc isn't portable then it's broken? |
It is portable, as long as you define portable to mean, "I can infect your system with my crap without any extra work." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mdeininger
Veteran
Joined: 15 Jun 2005
Posts: 1740
Location: Emerald Isles, observing Dublin's docklands
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AidanJT wrote: | | cokehabit wrote: | | I dont think curie is full-featured enough (from what magnus tells me). |
Curie isn't at all intended to be a libc replacement.
It'd probably be better to start a new one from scratch, and just do it properly. |
that's kind of what curie is doing though. but yeah it'd be quite the bitch to port all the current tools to it, since it's not only not similar in interface to posix, there's not a single function call that would be the same... which is good since it means the backup implementation just uses posix, meaning porting is far less of an issue.
there's so much wrong with the ansi libcs and posix though, it's surprising it's still that "popular". just thinking of all the *printf() shit makes me wanna stab someone.
_________________
"Confident, lazy, cocky, dead." -- Felix Jongleur, Otherland
( Twitter | Blog | GitHub ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1246
Location: Idaho, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| syntropy wrote: | | AidanJT wrote: | | cokehabit wrote: | | I dont think curie is full-featured enough (from what magnus tells me). |
Curie isn't at all intended to be a libc replacement.
It'd probably be better to start a new one from scratch, and just do it properly. |
That's the trick to it all though. (Emphasis mine.)
| wswartzendruber wrote: | | Am I wrong to say that if glibc isn't portable then it's broken? |
It is portable, as long as you define portable to mean, "I can infect your system with my crap without any extra work." |
What I was trying to says is this: If glibc doesn't follow the ANSI standards, isn't it broken? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cokey
Advocate
Joined: 23 Apr 2004
Posts: 3343
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
2/3 support is quite high
_________________
"Sex: breakfast of champions" - James Hunt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Gentoo Chat
