On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 10:17:13AM +0000, sylvain.bertr...@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).
