18 ms·

Compilers in OpenBSD (2013)

77 points by fcambus 12y ago

nickysielicki 12y ago
If obsd moves to clang I'll eat my hat. pccm is naturlly where they're headed. It's just not ready yet.
cantankerous 12y ago
Curious if the folks at OpenBSD have ever thought about giving CompCert-C a shake. I realize it's no gcc or llvm, but OpenBSD is no run of the mill *nix, either. http://compcert.inria.fr/compcert-C.html http://compcert.inria.fr/compcert-C.html EDIT: See also https://github.com/AbsInt/CompCert https://github.com/AbsInt/CompCert
- zer0rest 12y ago
  The license of CompCert is an instant no to be part of base in openBSD. I believe the reason openBSD hasn't changed to llvm is because it doesn't support all of their current architectures(feel free to correct me on this).
  - gambogi 12y ago
    Here's a link explaining why they haven't switched yet: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=137530560232232 http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=137530560232232
    - zer0rest 12y ago
      It is really worrying because it seems to be the trend with everything, from web browsers, compilers, all the way down to kernels.
    - tedunangst 12y ago
      Well done.
    - anon1385 12y ago
      The idea that older versions of GCC didn't have as many bugs doesn't hold up to any scrutiny: http://blog.regehr.org/archives/1036 http://blog.regehr.org/archives/1036
      - tedunangst 12y ago
        Not all compiler bugs are equal. Miod has a pretty good sense of which compilers exhibited the worst bugs in practice and the effort required to fix/workaround them. see also http://blog.regehr.org/archives/1036#comment-12057 http://blog.regehr.org/archives/1036#comment-12057
rbc 12y ago
This was my favorite quote: "The free software world needs an LTS compiler."
- supdog 12y ago
  Agree. I wonder what it would take to make Rust 1.0 + LLVM into an LTS?
  - kibwen 12y ago
    Rust 1.0 represents a foundation for the language, rather than the ultimate expression of it. A LTS release could be a good idea, but I don't see it happening for at least a year or so.
- zer0rest 12y ago
  definitely
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- ternaryoperator 12y ago
  Sorry to be that guy, but what's an LTS compiler? (Google was not forthcoming.)
  - barsonme 12y ago
    LTS means long-term support, which means freezing features and maintaining that version for 2-5 (or more) years.
    - erglkjahlkh 12y ago
      Also LTS means "95% of the developers left for the newer version because on open source projects no one can be forced to work on legacy applications like in business world". Good luck with that. I tried to go on with the Ubuntu's LTS once, and the logic definitely doesn't work. Bugs, even major ones, just pile up faster than the remaining couple developers can fix, and it's was too painful of an experience to repeat. Ubuntu LTS has shelf life of 6-12 months unless if you start paying. Which is unfortunate.
usman11 12y ago
http://mytricks30.blogspot.com/2015/04/final-four.html http://mytricks30.blogspot.com/2015/04/final-four.html
jeffreyrogers 12y ago
On a somewhat related note, I found it amusing that in OS X gcc has been aliased to clang.
- dietrichepp 12y ago
  It's a practical concern, really. Too many people wrote Makefiles which called gcc instead of cc.
  - dagw 12y ago
    Traditionally on most Unix systems cc and gcc where two different compilers. Many times people would write code in ways that compiled with gcc, but not cc, so specifying exactly which compiler you want makes sense.
    - rdc12 12y ago
      It might be bit ugly, but couldn't you use a variable inplace of the compiler name, so that it would be trivial for someone to attempt using another compiler
      - tobik 12y ago
        That is exactly what make supports out of the box. If ${CC} is missing from the Makefile, ${CC} is globally set to the system C compiler i.e. cc Users can use a different compiler by specifying it on the command line via e.g. make CC=clang Some people set CC=gcc in their Makefile to force the usage of gcc. Never do this. Do this instead: CC?=gcc That way users can still override the value of ${CC} on the command line if they want to.
        dietrichepp 12y ago
        > CC?=gcc This is only relevant if you want portability to other versions of Make. I simply don't care about anybody who's not using GNU Make these days. Try it yourself: command line options override variables in makefiles unless "override" is specified for that assignment.
1wd 12y ago
> The last de-facto LTS compiler we have had was gcc 2.7.2.1, and it is too old to compile modern C and C++ code. Wont any LTS compiler be "too old" quickly?
- DominikD 12y ago
  Depends on your code. C isn't moving at the pace C++ is so given that most (all?) of the OpenBSD base is C and sh, LTS will work with base, no problem. It's important too that developers are rather happy with what C99 brings to the table so it's a solid reference point for any LTS compiler that would/could happen. It's ports, I think, where the problem is. A lot of that code is C++ so you need compiler and std lib implementation to be able to handle it. But there are two problem. First one: the quality of ports varies from project to project. There's code out there that depends on certain gcc-specific extension, compiler quirks, bugs, you name it. C++ is insanely complex and features just keep piling on. I bet the moment C++17 is available some projects start using certain features because they can. In this case C++ is a moving target and it's hard to imagine LTE C++ compiler for open source projects. Second one: AFAIK only gcc's standard library has support for all of the wacky constructs C++ requires. You're probably out of luck if you try to compile C++ code with thread local storage intermingled with exceptions and you want to depends on non-GPL musl or bionic (which would be important for projects like OpenBSD). And there's code depending on that in ports, you can bet on it. Until these problems are solved[1], OpenBSD won't migrate. LLVM could become the LTS compiler for projects that would benefit from using it, but it doesn't look like a complete operating system is a project that would fit. [1] plus some others, like backends available for more than x86/64, arm, mips, PPC, Sparc and z (or whatever the list is today); OpenBSD supports quite a few esoteric platforms
andrewchambers 12y ago
Great place to shamelessly mention my MIT licensed work in progress C compiler (written in Go), https://github.com/andrewchambers/cc/ https://github.com/andrewchambers/cc/ . Nowhere near the level it needs to be, but would be fun if I could start a community to push it forward.
julie1 12y ago
12 years ago miod and marc talking of openBSD http://www.libroscope.org/OpenBSD-ne-desarme-pas http://www.libroscope.org/OpenBSD-ne-desarme-pas (fr) or miod taking is sherlock holmes hat to solve a GCC bug http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2003/10/02/openbsd_gcc.html http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2003/10/02/openbsd_gcc.html Yes I am a fanboy of miod, and I am not even ashamed.
julie1 12y ago
12 years ago miod and marc talking of openBSD http://www.libroscope.org/OpenBSD-ne-desarme-pas http://www.libroscope.org/OpenBSD-ne-desarme-pas (fr) or miod taking is sherlock holmes hat to solve a GCC bug http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2003/10/02/openbsd_gcc.html http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2003/10/02/openbsd_gcc.html Yes I am a fanboy of miod, and I am not even ashamed.
rurban 12y ago
Old discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6141319 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6141319 Why again?
rurban 12y ago
Old discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6141319 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6141319 Why again?

77 points by fcambus 12y ago

If obsd moves to clang I'll eat my hat. pccm is naturlly where they're headed. It's just not ready yet.

Curious if the folks at OpenBSD have ever thought about giving CompCert-C a shake. I realize it's no gcc or llvm, but OpenBSD is no run of the mill *nix, either. http://compcert.inria.fr/compcert-C.html http://compcert.inria.fr/compcert-C.html EDIT: See also https://github.com/AbsInt/CompCert https://github.com/AbsInt/CompCert

zer0rest 12y ago
The license of CompCert is an instant no to be part of base in openBSD. I believe the reason openBSD hasn't changed to llvm is because it doesn't support all of their current architectures(feel free to correct me on this).
- gambogi 12y ago
  Here's a link explaining why they haven't switched yet: http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=137530560232232 http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=137530560232232
  - zer0rest 12y ago
    It is really worrying because it seems to be the trend with everything, from web browsers, compilers, all the way down to kernels.
  - tedunangst 12y ago
    Well done.
  - anon1385 12y ago
    The idea that older versions of GCC didn't have as many bugs doesn't hold up to any scrutiny: http://blog.regehr.org/archives/1036 http://blog.regehr.org/archives/1036
    - tedunangst 12y ago
      Not all compiler bugs are equal. Miod has a pretty good sense of which compilers exhibited the worst bugs in practice and the effort required to fix/workaround them. see also http://blog.regehr.org/archives/1036#comment-12057 http://blog.regehr.org/archives/1036#comment-12057

rbc 12y ago

This was my favorite quote: "The free software world needs an LTS compiler."

supdog 12y ago
Agree. I wonder what it would take to make Rust 1.0 + LLVM into an LTS?
- kibwen 12y ago
  Rust 1.0 represents a foundation for the language, rather than the ultimate expression of it. A LTS release could be a good idea, but I don't see it happening for at least a year or so.
zer0rest 12y ago
definitely
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
ternaryoperator 12y ago
Sorry to be that guy, but what's an LTS compiler? (Google was not forthcoming.)
- barsonme 12y ago
  LTS means long-term support, which means freezing features and maintaining that version for 2-5 (or more) years.
  - erglkjahlkh 12y ago
    Also LTS means "95% of the developers left for the newer version because on open source projects no one can be forced to work on legacy applications like in business world". Good luck with that. I tried to go on with the Ubuntu's LTS once, and the logic definitely doesn't work. Bugs, even major ones, just pile up faster than the remaining couple developers can fix, and it's was too painful of an experience to repeat. Ubuntu LTS has shelf life of 6-12 months unless if you start paying. Which is unfortunate.

usman11 12y ago

http://mytricks30.blogspot.com/2015/04/final-four.html http://mytricks30.blogspot.com/2015/04/final-four.html

jeffreyrogers 12y ago

On a somewhat related note, I found it amusing that in OS X gcc has been aliased to clang.

dietrichepp 12y ago
It's a practical concern, really. Too many people wrote Makefiles which called gcc instead of cc.
- dagw 12y ago
  Traditionally on most Unix systems cc and gcc where two different compilers. Many times people would write code in ways that compiled with gcc, but not cc, so specifying exactly which compiler you want makes sense.
  - rdc12 12y ago
    It might be bit ugly, but couldn't you use a variable inplace of the compiler name, so that it would be trivial for someone to attempt using another compiler
    - tobik 12y ago
      That is exactly what make supports out of the box. If ${CC} is missing from the Makefile, ${CC} is globally set to the system C compiler i.e. cc Users can use a different compiler by specifying it on the command line via e.g. make CC=clang Some people set CC=gcc in their Makefile to force the usage of gcc. Never do this. Do this instead: CC?=gcc That way users can still override the value of ${CC} on the command line if they want to.
      - dietrichepp 12y ago
        > CC?=gcc This is only relevant if you want portability to other versions of Make. I simply don't care about anybody who's not using GNU Make these days. Try it yourself: command line options override variables in makefiles unless "override" is specified for that assignment.

1wd 12y ago

> The last de-facto LTS compiler we have had was gcc 2.7.2.1, and it is too old to compile modern C and C++ code. Wont any LTS compiler be "too old" quickly?

DominikD 12y ago
Depends on your code. C isn't moving at the pace C++ is so given that most (all?) of the OpenBSD base is C and sh, LTS will work with base, no problem. It's important too that developers are rather happy with what C99 brings to the table so it's a solid reference point for any LTS compiler that would/could happen. It's ports, I think, where the problem is. A lot of that code is C++ so you need compiler and std lib implementation to be able to handle it. But there are two problem. First one: the quality of ports varies from project to project. There's code out there that depends on certain gcc-specific extension, compiler quirks, bugs, you name it. C++ is insanely complex and features just keep piling on. I bet the moment C++17 is available some projects start using certain features because they can. In this case C++ is a moving target and it's hard to imagine LTE C++ compiler for open source projects. Second one: AFAIK only gcc's standard library has support for all of the wacky constructs C++ requires. You're probably out of luck if you try to compile C++ code with thread local storage intermingled with exceptions and you want to depends on non-GPL musl or bionic (which would be important for projects like OpenBSD). And there's code depending on that in ports, you can bet on it. Until these problems are solved[1], OpenBSD won't migrate. LLVM could become the LTS compiler for projects that would benefit from using it, but it doesn't look like a complete operating system is a project that would fit. [1] plus some others, like backends available for more than x86/64, arm, mips, PPC, Sparc and z (or whatever the list is today); OpenBSD supports quite a few esoteric platforms

andrewchambers 12y ago

Great place to shamelessly mention my MIT licensed work in progress C compiler (written in Go), https://github.com/andrewchambers/cc/ https://github.com/andrewchambers/cc/ . Nowhere near the level it needs to be, but would be fun if I could start a community to push it forward.

julie1 12y ago

12 years ago miod and marc talking of openBSD http://www.libroscope.org/OpenBSD-ne-desarme-pas http://www.libroscope.org/OpenBSD-ne-desarme-pas (fr) or miod taking is sherlock holmes hat to solve a GCC bug http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2003/10/02/openbsd_gcc.html http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/bsd/2003/10/02/openbsd_gcc.html Yes I am a fanboy of miod, and I am not even ashamed.

julie1 12y ago

rurban 12y ago

Old discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6141319 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6141319 Why again?

rurban 12y ago

Old discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6141319 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6141319 Why again?