News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on LLVM 9.0. Parent comment

Re:LLVM 9.0 by The_rationalist on Thursday September 19, 2019 @04:00PM (#21020102)
Interesting so this means that if someone really want llvm to support an extension (say a C attribute) that GCC supports, then you "just" have to make a contribution to the Linux kernel that use the gcc attribute and that is a minimum useful. Then LLVM will prioritize the support of said attribute.

As such, hardcore developers might become new Linux contributors just as an Indirect (but effective) way to force LLVM/clang to add support for an attribute.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:LLVM 9.0 by sanxiyn on Thursday September 19, 2019 @09:15PM (#21022424)
Yes, this is in fact a viable strategy. Source: I contributed a few GCC extension in Clang forced by Linux kernel.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:LLVM 9.0 by spacepinball on Thursday September 19, 2019 @08:54PM (#21022291)
Rational indeed
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:LLVM 9.0 by chc on Thursday September 19, 2019 @04:58PM (#21020696)
Who in the world would do that rather than just supporting both compilers?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:LLVM 9.0 by The_rationalist on Thursday September 19, 2019 @05:07PM (#21020781)
You don't seems to understand that extensions/attributes can have a usefulness that far outweight cross compiler compatibility?

Type of reasons: Performance critical; Security; Expressivity;

Each of them can be a necessary reason. E.g "polymorphism" in C through transparent unions

[ Parent | on HN ]