On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 8:29 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 08:26:42PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 08:05:16PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >> > You can also find some reasons in the Why section of LLVM-Linux project: >> > http://llvm.linuxfoundation.org/index.php/Main_Page >> >> From that: >> >> - LLVM/Clang is a fast moving project with many things fixed quickly >> and features added. >> >> So what's the deal with that 5 year old bug you want us to work around? >> >> Also, clang doesn't support asm cc flags output and a few other >> extensions last time I checked. >> > > Another great one: > > - BSD License (some people prefer this license to the GPL) > > Seems a very weak argument to make when talking about the Linux Kernel > which is very explicitly GPLv2 (and not later). OK, I guess should not have referenced the llvm-linux page. So here are reasons on our side that I am ready to vouch: - clang make it possible to implement KMSAN (dynamic detection of uses of uninit memory) - better code coverage for fuzzing - why simpler and faster development (e.g. we can port our user-space hardening technologies -- CFI and SafeStack) Michael is on a different team and has own reasons to do this.
