I wish there was no GNU stuff in it.
1 Like
You could run Alpine compiled with musl instead of GCC.
2 Likes
Yeah I know of Alpine, but it’s not just glibc. Can you compile everything with clang not GCC there? Like the whole distro and packages?
yeah.
1 Like
3 Likes
I just nuked my partitions a week ago and haven’t got around of reinstalling Linux yet. Might as well take up the challenge and try BSD. 
If we have badges for this should be also have a list of those who are participating? I wasn’t around when the Linux challenge was on so I don’t know how that went. Maybe have a list that has: name of the participant, name of the selected BSD os, and what participant if focusing on (server stuff, daily driver for desktop, etc.)
Should the participants have a blog thread for their contribution to the challenge?
2 Likes
A Mac
2 Likes
26 posts were merged into an existing topic: The Lounge - 2019/04 April [This Comment Has Been Censored Due to European Union’s Copyright Law Edition]
Just wait, soon everything will be FINNISHED!
Also guys this is not the Lounge, Maybe a leader should move some stuff before Admindev gets angry?
4 Likes
Wait, this thread is for the bsdcurious, a @leaders should merge our posts into the lounge so we don’t shit up @AnotherDev’s thread
4 Likes
but please just move my posts to void or something, I am serious
or just del them nothing important was discussed afaik
1 Like
GCC is pretty much a standard anymore alongside Clang. I’m not saying you can’t avoid using it, but it’s pretty damn hard given much code is written to comply with its standards
1 Like
Yes, I am aware, hence why I am even curios about alternatives, since it’s so entrenched. I don’t have anything against GCC, mind you, just prefer to have alternatives.
2 Likes
This is where things get a bit difficult.
I know people love to compare compilers… But for instance, let’s take GCC and Clang.
GCC supports far more languages such as Go and Java, but Clang is much faster and consumes less memory. So, here we have a conundrum because for 1. there’s no way in hell you’re compiling Go with Clang and 2. you can’t dock points from GCC for being slower as it is built to the standards of several languages without AST support.
Comparing compilers for this reason is almost useless.
What you can compare however are optimizations.
For instance, a kernel compiled with Clang will almost without a doubt always be faster than one compiled by GCC due to how Clang issues optimizations.
At the same time, one compiler may be better suited for one driver than another thus causing slow downs if optimizations are discarded.
It’s Pandora’s Box. It’s not definitive. I can say X is better than Y for usecase Z, but I can’t say X is always better than Y.
1 Like
I only care about C 
2 Likes
Clang for performance. GCC for licensing issues.
3 Likes
Is this a joke? GCC is typically higher performance and offers wider support for obscure architectures (by nature of having been around a long time). Clang is favorable for its permissive license and modular architecture enabling wide reusability of its components for things like clang-format and easy development of new languages (such as Rust) while being able to share optimizations at various levels.
2 Likes
1 Like