Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> Koakuma koac...@protonmail.com wrote:
> > 2. I tried a larger set of LLVM patches (D51206, D128263, D130006,
> > D132465, D135515, D138532, D138741, D138887, D138922, D139535, and
> > D140515) and while it does reduce the kernel binary, it did not
> > do it much -
On Sun, Dec 25 2022, Koakuma wrote:
> Some weekend updates:
>
> 1. The clang-built kernels seem to be working well enough that I could
>complete building a (GCC-built) userland.
That's good to know, I think I haven't tested that after we moved to
llvm 13.
> 2. I tried a larger set of LLVM pa
Some weekend updates:
1. The clang-built kernels seem to be working well enough that I could
complete building a (GCC-built) userland.
2. I tried a larger set of LLVM patches (D51206, D128263, D130006,
D132465, D135515, D138532, D138741, D138887, D138922, D139535, and
D140515) and while i
Hello tech@,
I had a discussion about this earlier with kn@ and he suggested me
to post this here, so here it is...
If I'm understanding it correctly, one of the things preventing
sparc64 from fully switching to clang/LLVM is that the generated
binaries (particularly, for the kernel) are much larg
