3 ms·

"When other languages have compiler specific extensions beyond the spec, it is a failure in their design." This one of the failures of Linus T. with the linux

by sylware 2mo ago

"When other languages have compiler specific extensions beyond the spec, it is a failure in their design." This one of the failures of Linus T. with the linux kernel: he was not able to keep the assembly source code with plain and simple C code you can compile with a small and alternative C compiler (same failure for the glibc devs I think). I don't blame him, he is already keeping the linux ABI stable, and pulling that off is something.

jstimpfle 2mo ago
Many other languages only have one compiler available to start with. Each additional compiler supported by a project means variance in functionality and thus additional work for the project. That work could make the codebase more robust. Or it could be a ton of useless work. Or anything in between. Depends on the context of the project.
Dylan16807 2mo ago
> assembly source code with plain and simple C code you can compile with a small and alternative C compiler Which part of that big clause is the part that failed? Because I thought you could still compile Linux with TCC.
- sylware 2mo ago
  As far as I know, that was for x86(32bits) linux, that decades ago. With those assembly source files (which do not abuse any pre-processor) and plain and simple C, I could build a modern x86_64 linux kernel with cproc/qbe (which gets 70% of gcc speed in my CPU intensive benchmarks... for a few % of gcc code and in plain and simple C, not brain damaged c++). But I kind of don't mind since the future is assembly coding on non-IP-locked standard like RISC-V, and the main issue for that future is the abuse of pre-processors (ffmpeg was bitten by it) or code generators which would not be written in assembly themselves (or with a simple high level language with an assembly written interpreter, asmpython?).
  - Dylan16807 2mo ago
    I had checked that the project was touched more recently but apparently the kernel version wasn't updated at all. So yes, decades ago, oh well.
    - sylware 2mo ago
      Indeed, Linus T. is not superman, he cannot preserve linux of all the danger around.

by sylware 2mo ago

jstimpfle 2mo ago

Many other languages only have one compiler available to start with. Each additional compiler supported by a project means variance in functionality and thus additional work for the project. That work could make the codebase more robust. Or it could be a ton of useless work. Or anything in between. Depends on the context of the project.

Dylan16807 2mo ago

> assembly source code with plain and simple C code you can compile with a small and alternative C compiler Which part of that big clause is the part that failed? Because I thought you could still compile Linux with TCC.

sylware 2mo ago
As far as I know, that was for x86(32bits) linux, that decades ago. With those assembly source files (which do not abuse any pre-processor) and plain and simple C, I could build a modern x86_64 linux kernel with cproc/qbe (which gets 70% of gcc speed in my CPU intensive benchmarks... for a few % of gcc code and in plain and simple C, not brain damaged c++). But I kind of don't mind since the future is assembly coding on non-IP-locked standard like RISC-V, and the main issue for that future is the abuse of pre-processors (ffmpeg was bitten by it) or code generators which would not be written in assembly themselves (or with a simple high level language with an assembly written interpreter, asmpython?).
- Dylan16807 2mo ago
  I had checked that the project was touched more recently but apparently the kernel version wasn't updated at all. So yes, decades ago, oh well.
  - sylware 2mo ago
    Indeed, Linus T. is not superman, he cannot preserve linux of all the danger around.