Compilers in OpenBSD (2013)

Curious if the folks at OpenBSD have ever thought about giving CompCert-C a shake. I realize it&#x27;s no gcc or llvm, but OpenBSD is no run of the mill *nix, either.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;compcert.inria.fr&#x2F;compcert-C.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;compcert.inria.fr&#x2F;compcert-C.html</a><p>EDIT: See also <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;AbsInt&#x2F;CompCert" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;AbsInt&#x2F;CompCert</a>

This was my favorite quote: &quot;The free software world needs an LTS compiler.&quot;

Great place to shamelessly mention my MIT licensed work in progress C compiler (written in Go), <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;andrewchambers&#x2F;cc&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;andrewchambers&#x2F;cc&#x2F;</a> . Nowhere near the level it needs to be, but would be fun if I could start a community to push it forward.

12 years ago miod and marc talking of openBSD <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.libroscope.org&#x2F;OpenBSD-ne-desarme-pas" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.libroscope.org&#x2F;OpenBSD-ne-desarme-pas</a> (fr)<p>or miod taking is sherlock holmes hat to solve a GCC bug <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.onlamp.com&#x2F;pub&#x2F;a&#x2F;bsd&#x2F;2003&#x2F;10&#x2F;02&#x2F;openbsd_gcc.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.onlamp.com&#x2F;pub&#x2F;a&#x2F;bsd&#x2F;2003&#x2F;10&#x2F;02&#x2F;openbsd_gcc.html</a><p>Yes I am a fanboy of miod, and I am not even ashamed.

&gt; The last de-facto LTS compiler we have had was gcc 2.7.2.1, and it is too old to compile modern C and C++ code.<p>Wont any LTS compiler be &quot;too old&quot; quickly?

If obsd moves to clang I&#x27;ll eat my hat.<p>pccm is naturlly where they&#x27;re headed. It&#x27;s just not ready yet.

On a somewhat related note, I found it amusing that in OS X gcc has been aliased to clang.

Old discussion: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=6141319" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=6141319</a><p>Why again?