Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
| From: | Bryce Lelbach <admin-3q1HvbVIrc72AbsnzC34Jknl3mk2Ux8O-AT-public.gmane.org> | |
| To: | cfe-dev-Tmj1lob9twqVc3sceRu5cw-AT-public.gmane.org | |
| Subject: | Clang builds a working Linux Kernel (Boots to RL5 with SMP, networking and X, self hosts) | |
| Date: | Mon, 25 Oct 2010 02:28:50 -0400 | |
| Message-ID: | <20101025022850.0f08836a@Pegasus> |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Clang can now compile a functional Linux Kernel (version 2.6.36, SMP).
General Details
===============
* Development and testing environment is a Macbook 5.1 (Intel C2D, x86_64)
running Debian GNU/Linux.
* The kernel can successfully boot to runlevel 5 (aka X + networking) on the
Macbook, both on bare metal and in Qemu.
* The kernel can successfully boot to runlevel 3 on a secondary test machine,
a microATX desktop box (Intel Atom). I haven't tried to start X on this box
yet.
* The kernel can self-host; I am currently running a "fourth generation" self-
hosted Linux kernel built by a "fourth generation" Clang.
Major Subsystems Successfully Built
===================================
I have likely left out a few things here.
* Core kernel stuff, Filesystems, Bus, PCI jazz, ACPI - No problems here that
I've run into. I'm sure there are issues under the hood here, just haven't
gotten to stress testing these yet.
* SMP, SMT, SysV, pthreads, and POSIX IPC - I have tested these fairly
extensively, (using the tiobench and rt-tests Debian packages, as well as
the proposed Boost.Process library and the Boost.Thread). Multithreading and
Multiprocessing in the compiled kernel seems to be functioning fine, but
multitasking has a couple of intermittent issues when used in user space
code (see below). The kernel -IS- doing a concurrent boot in runlevel 2,
though.
* NUMA, swap, mm, slab allocator - Memory seems to be fine. I've compiled both
LLVM + Clang and Linux multiple times on the clang built kernel, and I threw
some "eat your memoryez" programs from the Debian repositories at it;
doesn't look like there's trouble here.
* Network stack (IPv4) - The IPv4 stack is fine, except for IPSec (see the
notes on crypto support below). Netfilter and IPv6 both (separately) caused
ICEs when I initially tried to build the network stack. I think I fixed
this issue elsewhere (getting harddrive drivers to compile), so this may
not be in bad shape at all (harddrive issue was an ICE caused by some
seemingly legal conditional operators semantics in the kernel. The problem
is specifically in CodeGen, which is the part of the clang that I've hacked
the most, so it's likely this is a bug I introduced on my local fork).
* Drivers and Firmware Stuff - Drivers have all been relatively well behaved
thus far. However, I've had to be very picky, as any driver that depends on
crypto stuff (even the basic kernel crc routines) breaks things. Mostly,
I've just compiled what my laptop has needed and the generic drivers needed
for my microATX desktop box/running the kernel in Qemu. I have added some
of less obscure drivers to the build configuration, though. Here's a short
list of things that work on my laptop (all the open source drivers are
clang-compiled):
* Graphics and sound. I installed Flash and listened to some BoostCon
videos from last year to confirm this.
* Keyboard. No backlight, though, but I never had that working in the
first place.
* DVD/CDROM.
* Touchpad.
* Various USB stuff.
* iSight.
* Speaker
Non-Essential Subsystems Failing at Compile Time
================================================
Again, I'm possibly forgetting things here. I should also note that it's very
possible that my hacks to either clang, Linux or the Linux build setup caused
this.
* SELinux, Posix ACLs, IPSec, eCrypt, anything that uses the crypto API - None
of these will compile, due to either an ICE or variable-length arrays in
structures (don't remember which, it's in my notes somewhere). If it's
variable-length arrays or another intentionally unsupported GNUtension, I'm
hoping it's just used in some isolated implementation detail (or details),
and not a fundamental part of the crypto API (honestly just haven't had a
chance to dive into the crypto source yet). I'm really hoping it's an issue
in Clang, though, as it's easier for me to hack Clang and I'm trying to
avoid kernel patches as much as possible.
* IPv6 and Netfilters/Router stuff - Some of this is tied to the above issues
with the crypto API, but IPv6 and Netfilters each have their own fatal
errors.
* Virtualization - Virtualization is the only thing I haven't done any work on
yet. I tried compiling minimal Xen support, ran into a fatal error, and put
it on my "Get the basics functional first".
Fatal Subsystem Failures Temporarily Averted by Compiling with GCC
==================================================================
These two issues were already known when I started working on this, and
conveniently, people had patched the Linux build system to build these systems
with GCC, but were still unable to build a usable kernel. As I'm lazy, I took
this work and reused it.
* VDSO - VDSO breaks in strange ways with clang, at least, it did a week ago
when I put some time into investigating this. ATM, building VDSO with GCC
works, but I believe that this is still causing issues. I think the issue
here is similiar in nature to the issue with LKMs.
* Boot - The very early kernel boot code breaks with clang, because of obscure
inline assembly GNUtensions (.code16gcc stuff). I have no clue what needs to
be done to fix this, but as I actually know where this problem is, it should
be (relatively) easy to fix.
Crippling Problems
==================
* Modules - Module loading is totally broken. I'm pretty sure I just figured
out why, though (I'd elaborate, but this is pretty lengthy, and I might as
well just go implement it).
Brief closing notes - I'm adapting a slightly aged POSIX test suite developed by
some Intel hackers for use in stress testing/functionality testing/unit testing
clang compiled kernels. This is something of a side project for me (I have school
and what not), but my intention is to maintain a Linux git repo with the source
patches/build set up needed to compile with a matching Clang git repo. Hopefully
in a few weeks/couple of months, with intensive automated testing and fixes to
the above issues, Clang + Linux will be feasible for producing production quality
Linux kernels.
I'm going to try to clean up some of my modifications to Clang (mostly hacks in
CodeGen stuff, local labels (not 100% done yet), explicit register variables,
a more complete implementation of GNU inline assembly constraints). Some of my
changes implement the sort of cryptic GNUtensions that I sense most Clang devs
would find distasteful (I haven't added support for anything explicitly stated
as unsupported on the clang website).
P.S. boot logs:
http://gist.github.com/644488
http://gist.github.com/644490
I saved build times somewhere. Depending on how the configuration is tweaked/the
SMP support of the kernel that I'm building on top of, Clang builds Linux in about
13-15 minutes.
Back to hacking :)
- --
Bryce Lelbach aka wash
http://groups.google.com/group/ariel_devel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkzFI6IACgkQO/fqqIuE2t7RRQCaAzpFjAC7T9qTHunR69NNZzfk
Sj8AnR28NvtaRQv0fqM8S8gA+1UieqLj
=3ZwN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Posted Oct 25, 2010 23:22 UTC (Mon)
by gjmarter (guest, #5777)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Oct 25, 2010 23:29 UTC (Mon)
by BenHutchings (subscriber, #37955)
[Link]
Posted Oct 25, 2010 23:32 UTC (Mon)
by BenHutchings (subscriber, #37955)
[Link] (10 responses)
Posted Oct 26, 2010 0:35 UTC (Tue)
by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75)
[Link] (9 responses)
Posted Oct 26, 2010 0:54 UTC (Tue)
by xorbe (guest, #3165)
[Link]
1: single user
Posted Oct 26, 2010 8:09 UTC (Tue)
by wash (guest, #70825)
[Link] (7 responses)
Posted Oct 26, 2010 12:50 UTC (Tue)
by sorpigal (guest, #36106)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted Oct 26, 2010 13:45 UTC (Tue)
by jengelh (guest, #33263)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted Oct 26, 2010 16:06 UTC (Tue)
by sorpigal (guest, #36106)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Oct 26, 2010 19:51 UTC (Tue)
by xorbe (guest, #3165)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Oct 27, 2010 12:01 UTC (Wed)
by Kamilion (guest, #42576)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Oct 30, 2010 11:29 UTC (Sat)
by k8to (guest, #15413)
[Link]
Posted Oct 28, 2010 8:42 UTC (Thu)
by ekj (guest, #1524)
[Link]
Posted Oct 26, 2010 4:47 UTC (Tue)
by error27 (subscriber, #8346)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Oct 26, 2010 5:28 UTC (Tue)
by wash (guest, #70825)
[Link] (1 responses)
- Bryce Lelbach
Posted Oct 28, 2010 16:11 UTC (Thu)
by mingo (guest, #31122)
[Link]
Btw, a few days ago we found out that the jump label support code is broken in GCC, it messes up the stack offset which crashes the kernel.
So LLVM might be the first compiler on the planet to have working GCC jump label support ;-)
Posted Oct 26, 2010 5:27 UTC (Tue)
by rilder (guest, #59804)
[Link] (20 responses)
Also
It will be interesting to see if clang builds faster than gcc with similar level of optimizations enabled.
Posted Oct 26, 2010 6:31 UTC (Tue)
by wash (guest, #70825)
[Link] (1 responses)
I've been unable to find a usable kernel test suite. I've tried a few, and been disappointed by all of them, most of all by the Linux Testing Project.
The best test suite I've found so far is a debian package called posixtestsuite. It's a few years old, and looks to have been written by a bunch of Intel hackers. It has a number of desirable features, such as the ability to be compiled without hair pulling, and documentation.
I'm open to suggestions regarding broader performance testing solutions.
Posted Oct 27, 2010 11:27 UTC (Wed)
by i3839 (guest, #31386)
[Link]
Posted Oct 26, 2010 11:11 UTC (Tue)
by juliank (guest, #45896)
[Link] (17 responses)
Posted Oct 26, 2010 11:59 UTC (Tue)
by jwakely (subscriber, #60262)
[Link] (16 responses)
Posted Oct 26, 2010 12:32 UTC (Tue)
by juliank (guest, #45896)
[Link] (15 responses)
> compiles 100 times faster or runs 100 times faster? Run time. The following code runs much faster when compiled clang++ (0.003s) than when compiled using g++ (1.593s):
Posted Oct 26, 2010 13:04 UTC (Tue)
by juliank (guest, #45896)
[Link] (14 responses)
It might be that clang is able to optimize (-O2) to - as per Gauss:
Posted Oct 26, 2010 13:13 UTC (Tue)
by juliank (guest, #45896)
[Link] (13 responses)
I missed a, and the solution was wrong. The correct way to calculate the sum of all values {x | a <= x < b} is:
Posted Oct 26, 2010 13:38 UTC (Tue)
by jwakely (subscriber, #60262)
[Link] (12 responses)
Posted Oct 26, 2010 14:01 UTC (Tue)
by juliank (guest, #45896)
[Link] (8 responses)
Posted Oct 26, 2010 14:12 UTC (Tue)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Oct 26, 2010 14:35 UTC (Tue)
by jwakely (subscriber, #60262)
[Link]
Posted Oct 26, 2010 14:32 UTC (Tue)
by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501)
[Link] (5 responses)
I didn't check it with clang.
And just to provide a working link:
http://juliank.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/simple-code-clang...
Posted Oct 26, 2010 14:37 UTC (Tue)
by juliank (guest, #45896)
[Link] (4 responses)
Then gcc calculates the result of f() at compile-time and just has a constant integer in the assembler code. Clang does not appear to do this (there's callq f in clang's assembly)
Posted Oct 26, 2010 16:29 UTC (Tue)
by gmaxwell (guest, #30048)
[Link] (3 responses)
"But.. why did you handicap GCC?"
"Cause if I didn't GCC was much faster!"
(just saying
:) )
Posted Oct 26, 2010 16:31 UTC (Tue)
by juliank (guest, #45896)
[Link] (1 responses)
GCC 4.5 at -O3 is as fast as clang, although not if you call the function via a pointer. GCC 4.4 has the same slow speed at -O2, -O3, -O4, -O9.
Posted Oct 27, 2010 9:27 UTC (Wed)
by jwakely (subscriber, #60262)
[Link]
GCC 4.5 has apparently already improved. Are you also comparing with a version of Clang from 18 months ago, when GCC 4.4 was released?
Posted Oct 26, 2010 21:47 UTC (Tue)
by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501)
[Link]
Posted Oct 26, 2010 14:19 UTC (Tue)
by mjw (subscriber, #16740)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Oct 26, 2010 14:38 UTC (Tue)
by juliank (guest, #45896)
[Link] (1 responses)
Brings it down to 0.200s
Posted Oct 26, 2010 16:32 UTC (Tue)
by gmaxwell (guest, #30048)
[Link]
Posted Oct 26, 2010 8:07 UTC (Tue)
by HelloWorld (guest, #56129)
[Link]
Posted Oct 26, 2010 8:36 UTC (Tue)
by micka (subscriber, #38720)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted Oct 26, 2010 8:42 UTC (Tue)
by tcourbon (guest, #60669)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted Oct 26, 2010 10:12 UTC (Tue)
by ledow (guest, #11753)
[Link] (4 responses)
At least, according to the post here, and that only took two seconds to find.
It's like saying that the Linux build process is now usable without Perl... so long as you have Perl installed and compile a couple of kernel parts with it first, or do that elsewhere.
I have to agree: when "make" builds a working kernel from (even patched) source, then you have a reason to shout. Even self-hosting is a bit dubious if you haven't actually tested that the kernel you're using is stable and/or working even vaguely right except on a single example computer and a lot of hope.
When it's possible for *anyone* to compile a kernel without having to do more than apply a patch or two, (i.e. no more complicated than your average unsupported compiler) then they can rejoice. Until then, it's an interesting intellectual exercise that is *nearing* success.
Posted Oct 26, 2010 11:01 UTC (Tue)
by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501)
[Link]
Posted Oct 26, 2010 13:23 UTC (Tue)
by PaXTeam (guest, #24616)
[Link] (1 responses)
then see http://lwn.net/Articles/409614/ ;). i posted a detailed email with the minimal patch last night to cfe-dev but apparently it's still held up in moderation, so i might bite the bullet and subscribe ;P.
Posted Oct 26, 2010 13:59 UTC (Tue)
by PaXTeam (guest, #24616)
[Link]
Posted Nov 6, 2010 3:08 UTC (Sat)
by efexis (guest, #26355)
[Link]
Posted Oct 26, 2010 11:42 UTC (Tue)
by ibukanov (subscriber, #3942)
[Link] (7 responses)
variable-length arrays is a part of C99. Does that "intentionally unsupported" implies that CLang would not fully support C99?
Posted Oct 26, 2010 11:50 UTC (Tue)
by jwakely (subscriber, #60262)
[Link] (6 responses)
I wouldn't be surprised if Clang only supports VLAs in C99 mode
Posted Oct 26, 2010 11:55 UTC (Tue)
by jwakely (subscriber, #60262)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Oct 26, 2010 23:07 UTC (Tue)
by wash (guest, #70825)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Oct 26, 2010 23:45 UTC (Tue)
by Trelane (subscriber, #56877)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Oct 30, 2010 12:32 UTC (Sat)
by viro (subscriber, #7872)
[Link]
extern void g(int *);
Yes, gcc is that sick.
Posted Oct 27, 2010 9:36 UTC (Wed)
by jwakely (subscriber, #60262)
[Link]
Posted Oct 28, 2010 21:12 UTC (Thu)
by jengelh (guest, #33263)
[Link]
In Rome, do as the Romans do: ICC (which is said to be able to compile the kernel) also supports the GNUisms. :)
Posted Oct 26, 2010 12:54 UTC (Tue)
by clugstj (subscriber, #4020)
[Link] (13 responses)
"Clang can now compile a functional Linux Kernel (version 2.6.36, SMP)."
No, it cannot, if you need to compile certain modules w/ GCC in order to get it to boot. Unless you don't consider booting to be something a kernel must do to be "functional".
Posted Oct 26, 2010 14:27 UTC (Tue)
by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted Oct 26, 2010 14:58 UTC (Tue)
by oak (guest, #2786)
[Link]
Many of the issues listed in above article are already handled, and GCC isn't anymore needed:
Posted Oct 26, 2010 16:02 UTC (Tue)
by ewan (guest, #5533)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Oct 26, 2010 22:22 UTC (Tue)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (2 responses)
If you are being sarcastic then please use "<sarcasm>" tag in the future... And if it was not sarcasm then I want to remind you that RedHat did exactly that in version 7.x (and yes, package was called kgcc).
Posted Oct 27, 2010 17:03 UTC (Wed)
by chad.netzer (subscriber, #4257)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Nov 6, 2010 3:12 UTC (Sat)
by efexis (guest, #26355)
[Link]
Posted Oct 26, 2010 14:57 UTC (Tue)
by wash (guest, #70825)
[Link] (6 responses)
A lot of people have put many hours of work into getting Clang to this stage. I am not one of them; I'm relatively new to the Clang community. In particular, Alp Toker from Nuanti and his team should be recognized for all the work they've been doing on this.
Anyways, the Linux Kernel can now be built entirely by Clang. Loadable modules work, the crypto and network stacks are fully functional, and SELinux is supported. I am now building with the Clang integrated assembler; the only part of the GNU toolchain still involved in the process is the GNU linker. I have been unable to find any other linker (which is not derived from GNU's), so for now, this toolchain will use ld.
The version source code for my local copies of Clang/LLVM and Linux will be put up on Github later this week, as well as instructions for building.
Posted Oct 26, 2010 15:33 UTC (Tue)
by loevborg (guest, #51779)
[Link]
Posted Oct 26, 2010 15:55 UTC (Tue)
by jwakely (subscriber, #60262)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Oct 26, 2010 16:53 UTC (Tue)
by MisterIO (guest, #36192)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Oct 26, 2010 18:34 UTC (Tue)
by rriggs (guest, #11598)
[Link]
Posted Oct 26, 2010 17:05 UTC (Tue)
by nteon (subscriber, #53899)
[Link]
Posted Oct 27, 2010 4:29 UTC (Wed)
by Lefty (guest, #51528)
[Link]
Posted Oct 27, 2010 5:28 UTC (Wed)
by dterei (guest, #45237)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Oct 27, 2010 6:58 UTC (Wed)
by wash (guest, #70825)
[Link]
What is ICE?
What is ICE?
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
I'm pretty sure that the reference to runlevels is a shorthand for how much he's gotten to work. So the runlevel 3 on his Atom machine means he has tested networking but not X11, while runlevel 5 on the Macbook means he can run X11.
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
3: multi-user
5: mu + X
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
Despite the fact that many people list runlevels with these meanings, in Linux it's just a convention used by some people and not intrinsic or a commonly accepted rule. I boot to runlevel 2 always, because higher numbers are ostentatious.
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
You certainly can, you just need to configure a runlevel of your choice to work that way.
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
"Depending on how the configuration is tweaked/the
SMP support of the kernel that I'm building on top of, Clang builds Linux in about 13-15 minutes."
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
> may be slower than gcc build but how much slower is the question.
I have a fairly normal calculation program that, compiled using clang, is much (100 times IIRC) faster than those compiled using gcc.
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
#include <iostream>
#include <boost/thread.hpp>
#define len 1000000000L
static void f(unsigned long a, unsigned long b, unsigned long *va)
{
for (*va = 0; a < b; a++)
*va += a;
}
int main()
{
unsigned long va = 0;
boost::thread a(f, 0l, 2* len, &va);
a.join();
std::cout << va << std::endl;
return 0;
}
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
for (*va = 0; a < b; a++)
*va += a;*va = (1 + b)*(b/2) - b1+2+...+N=(1 + N)*(N/2)
In
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
*va = (1 + b)*(b/2) - b*va = (b)*(b-1)/2 - (a)*(a-1)/2Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
In any case, I simplified it to C and posted it to my blog at http://juliank.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/simple-code-clang-creates-1600x-faster-executable-than-gcc/
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
> you remove "__attribute__((noinline))". This looks
> like a simpler explanation for the simpler code you posted there.
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
> "But.. why did you handicap GCC?"
> "Cause if I didn't GCC was much faster!"
> (just saying
:) )
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
If so, try -funroll-loops, which isn't automatically done with gcc/g++, because it might create larger object code:
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
-funroll-loops
Unroll loops whose number of iterations can be determined at
compile time or upon entry to the loop. -funroll-loops implies
-frerun-cse-after-loop, -fweb and -frename-registers. It also
turns on complete loop peeling (i.e. complete removal of loops with
small constant number of iterations). This option makes code
larger, and may or may not make it run faster.
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
> done with gcc/g++, because it might create larger object code:
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
That's the way to go, but only when you can take a vanilla tarball of a kernel (even in a pre-defined version), set the compiler, and launch 'make menuconfig' ; 'make all', to have a booting kernel, it will be considered done.
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
"It's like saying that the Linux build process is now usable without Perl"Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
No it's not. If it says "without gcc" then you would be correct, but it never says "without gcc", it only says "with clang". An inclusive is not the same as an exclusive.
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
that's in the context of C++, apparently Clang defaults to C99 for C (which is correct as that's the current standard) so I wonder why VLAs are described as unsupported - maybe a mistake
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
void f(int m, int n)
{
struct foo {
int a[n];
int b[n][m + 69];
} x;
g(&x.b[1][1]);
}
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Zero-Length.html
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
It seems to me that a compiler that won't build the Linux kernel probably wouldn't even get considered as the default compiler for a Linux distribution, while a compiler that will build the kernel might.
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-dev/2010-October/0...
"GCC is no longer needed at all during the build process. GNU ld is still needed; GNU's assembler is not. Linux successfully compiles with the integrated-assembler."
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
Hard to see if it was sarcasm or not...
Hard to see if it was sarcasm or not...
Hard to see if it was sarcasm or not...
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel
