3 ms·
Just personally I can see the virtue of multiple/different implementations. But the issue is building on top of gcc. The GNU toolchain is a dumpster fire, and I
by duped 3y ago
Just personally I can see the virtue of multiple/different implementations. But the issue is building on top of gcc. The GNU toolchain is a dumpster fire, and I legitimately don't know how anyone can develop on it.
Not just ideologically, I mean literally - I don't understand how one sets up a development environment for GCC itself. I've had the misfortune of bootstrapping it a handful of times and it's the single worst behaved piece of software I've ever seen.
- crotchfire 3y agoBootstrapping GCC is not hard at all: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/pkgs/development/compilers/gcc/default.nix https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/pkgs/developmen... (there are a ton of infrequently-used options in there; if you ignore them what's left is quite simple. replace all the options with `false` and do the dead-code elimination.) Hint: don't use glibc. The real problem comes from glibc and the way it depends on gcc internals, which depend on libc (i.e. circularly). Bootstrapping GCC on Musl is quite easy. glibc is the real dumpster fire.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]