Linked by the_randymon on Fri 25th Jan 2013 09:21 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 550515
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: might be more interesting the other way...
by MacMan on Sat 26th Jan 2013 01:32
in reply to "RE: might be more interesting the other way..."
Can you even compile the Linux kernel without gcc or gnu's c library(es)?
Yes you can:
http://llvm.org/devmtg/2012-04-12/Slides/Mark_Charlebois.pdf
And if I recall correctly, the first versions of Linux were developed on Minix.
RE[3]: might be more interesting the other way...
by Laurence on Sun 27th Jan 2013 11:37
in reply to "RE[2]: might be more interesting the other way..."
RE[2]: might be more interesting the other way...
by Drumhellar on Sat 26th Jan 2013 01:43
in reply to "RE: might be more interesting the other way..."
Clang will build the Linux kernel, though it doesn't (yet) work well.
Intel's compiler works really well for building the Linux kernel, or at least used to be a few years ago. I'd be surprised if that has changed.
And, there are other C libs that work. For example, uClib is designed to have a tiny footprint.




Member since:
2009-03-17
And with a BSD userland, maybe we could get rid of all this Stallman GNU/Everything BS.
Can you even compile the Linux kernel without gcc or gnu's c library(es)?