> The kernel is compiled with Yolo-C. So that you can compile the kernel, a copy of GCC is installed in /yolo/bin/gcc.
Fil, you can compile the Linux kernel will clang+lld. `make LLVM=1` https://docs.kernel.org/kbuild/llvm.html
It is so confusing to me. Yolo-C, Yolo Land, Fil-C...
For example
> Fil-C supports both musl and glibc. Because of the coupling between the loader, libc, and runtime, Fil-C always uses the same libc in Yolo Land as in User Land. So, when running with musl, we use two versions of musl (one compiled with Yolo-C and another compiled with Fil-C).
> And when running with glibc, we use two versions of glibc (one compiled with Yolo-C and another compiled with Fil-C). The rest of this page documents how the runtime looks with musl. If you build with glibc, you'll see minor differences.
Why do you need a libc compiled with both Yolo-C and Fil-C, and what are the differences? What exactly is Yolo-C?
This project says "The kernel is compiled with Yolo-C."... so is that a good thing? And why not Fil-C?
I see Yolo being mentioned a lot everywhere. What exactly is that, how does it relate to Fil-C, and what are the differences? There is such a thing as Yolo toolchain (and Yolo Land (userland)), too!
Filip, do you plan to support building the kernel with fil-c? What's the limiting factor right now on supporting that?
> Supported Systems Pizlix has been tested inside VMware and Hyper-V on X86_64.
Any idea if it runs on real hardware ?
I find the repeated "yolo" qualifications very tiresome, yawn-inducing.
At least in this article:
the term "classic C" is still used.
I don't expect for a moment that Fil-C might supplant normal C under normal circumstances. Calling normal C "yolo-C" is dishearteningly pompous. Just because you've invented a C environment with a different tradeoff, people not interested in it are not automatically irresponsible (which is what you are suggesting with "yolo", of course).
> Pizlix requires you to set up your machine thusly:
should say Pedantic Sunday: Happy Hanukkah!