| |||||||||||||
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 KernelClang builds a working 2.6.36 KernelPosted Oct 26, 2010 14:27 UTC (Tue) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)In reply to: Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel by clugstj Parent article: 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.
(Log in to post comments)
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel Posted Oct 26, 2010 14:58 UTC (Tue) by oak (subscriber, #2786) [Link]
According to latest mail by Bryce this morning:
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-dev/2010-October/0...
Many of the issues listed in above article are already handled, and GCC isn't anymore needed:
Clang builds a working 2.6.36 Kernel Posted Oct 26, 2010 16:02 UTC (Tue) by ewan (subscriber, #5533) [Link]
Yup. Can't imagine anyone ever shipping a distribution that requires a special copy of GCC just for the kernel, I mean, what would you call it- 'kgcc' or something?
Hard to see if it was sarcasm or not... Posted Oct 26, 2010 22:22 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] 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).
Hard to see if it was sarcasm or not... Posted Oct 27, 2010 17:03 UTC (Wed) by chad.netzer (✭ supporter ✭, #4257) [Link]
Maybe for sarcasm, we should instead use the <blink> tag. :)
Hard to see if it was sarcasm or not... Posted Nov 6, 2010 3:12 UTC (Sat) by efexis (guest, #26355) [Link]
Surely if it's sarcasm it should just be a <wink> tag rather than a <blink> tag? ;-)
|
|||||||||||||