The way this issue has somehow become a multi-year drama-fest is everything bad about what LLVM has become: reviews.llvm.org/D28791
(small patch adding the usual crtbegin.o/crtend.o Linux bits to compiler-rt so they're avail w/o libgcc (!))… mastodon.social/@wdtz/10133858
Conversation
BSD license doesn't explain this culture, this attitude; FreeBSD is not this way at all (and some of those folks are cc'd on this, heh).
What ＊is＊ the purpose of LLVM "these days" anyway?
It's increasingly hard to reject the answer…
3
Replying to
Both people objecting to this are associated with NetBSD and one even explicitly turns it into a political issue where they argue against compatibility with GNU / FSF platforms. I've seen a lot of Clang and LLVM developers doing this with the Linux kernel and GNU userspace.
If it's Windows, macOS or even *BSD, they do what is necessary to implement compatibility with the existing platform. For compatibility with the Linux kernel and particularly the GNU userspace, there's lots of resistance to implementing compatibility with GNU features / ABIs.
1
1
They take a different approach of demanding that the platform has done things for ages be changed based on subjective opinions about the design. Lots of work on compatibility for compiling the Linux kernel has been blocked due to these politics. I don't think it's in good faith.
1
2
Show replies
The whole thing is stupid because crtbegin.o/crtend.o _make no sense at all_ except for pulling in compiler machinery for wacky langs gcc supports (e.g. Java) or legacy C++ mechanisms (made obsolete by .eh_frame).
1
2
The ideal implementation of them both is empty .o files, or just not even trying to link them at all.
1
2
Show replies