Re: [dev] Some core tools

From: Jens Staal <staal1978_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 12:42:45 +0100

On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 10:17:13AM +0000, sylvain.bertrand_AT_gmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 09:29:08AM +0100, Jens Staal wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 06:37:39PM -0500, stephen Turner wrote:
> > > From a user perspective it has been a treat. I had issues with the GNU
> > > M4 compiling on a embedded musl and PCC system but this M4 compiled
> > > quick and clean. The only potential downside i can think of is it may
> > > not be well maintained. last i checked the website there were no new
> > > releases from when we tweaked the make file. There is another project
> > > called elftoolchain which replaces binutils but i haven't tested it
> > > yet.
> > >
> >
> > This m4 variant is very portable. If I remember correctly I could
> > compile it on Plan9/APE once (maybe with some modifications). Also, the
> > elftoolchain is an interesting project but you never hear much about it
> > and I guess the FreeBSD people are now moving to the LLVM
> > variants/alternatives to binutils when applicable?
>
> llvm is a massive c++ object oriented brain fuckage. It's so accute that we are
> talking mental pathology here. This is a "by the book" "corporate-like"
> fuckage. gcc is going amok (due to the same "corporate-like" sick people), but
> the damage is order of magnitude less than with llvm.
>
> The right answer from a suckless philosphy: have minimal binutils.
> Something which does only and cleanly minimum ELF64 objects (maybe taylored
> only for x86-64 and ARM64).
> It seems that some people are trying to complex-ify ELF as much as they can
> though, all for the wrong reasons, as usual (ELF symbol versioning...).
>
> --
> Sylvain


I did not promote the LLVM alternatives to binutils, just noted that
FreeBSD (where the elftoolchain project started) seem to move towards
the LLVM utilities instead (so I don't know how much development there
is on elftoolchain).
Received on Thu Feb 09 2017 - 12:42:45 CET