Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by belgesel 1779 days ago
Isn't that the other way around? I thought clang was trying to support all gcc extensions to be able to build Linux kernel.

I would rather see both of these compilers to stay competitive to push themselves higher.
2 comments
jabl 1778 days ago
Kind of both. They've added some gcc-specific extensions to clang, but also removed some gcc-ism's from the Linux kernel.
link
pjmlp 1779 days ago
clang already builds Linux kernel on Mountain View dungeons, and it has been doing that for a couple of years now.

Those changes just don't get to upstream.

link
rincebrain 1779 days ago
That's...not true?

https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/kbuild/llvm.html

I could be missing something, but I don't see any suggestion that you need a specific forked tree with patches to build with LLVM, and I've seen people filing bugs about using LLVM sanitizers to build the vanilla tree, so I don't think the expectation is that you need to apply a huge out of tree patchset for this to work any more?

link
yyyk 1778 days ago
There's an semi-official github[0] for this.

AFAICT from the issues page, Clang and binutils/LLVM tools work fine with no patches for the mainstream archs and when not trying to be super-fancy with custom flags. The more non-mainstream one goes with arch or flags the more likely one will run into something.

[0] https://github.com/ClangBuiltLinux/linux/issues (Note they use github for issues/wiki, not code, so no surprise the 'linux version' in code is oldish).

link
pjmlp 1779 days ago
I follow Android, not Linux itself.

My latest update was that not all patches were accepted upstream, or Google didn't care about upstreaming them, whatever.

There are some Linux Plumbers talks, or from Linaro, about this a years back.

link