Folks, Can y'all take further discussion off line? This back and forth sniping at each other has been going on for a long time and seems to be only marginally related to tcc.
Although I'm interested tcc's progress, all this stuff about boostrapping isn't of interest to me. I can't speak for the rest of the list, but I'd appreciate it if y'all would take this private. Thanks, Arnold [email protected] wrote: > Dear Michael, > > On Sat, Jul 11, 2026 at 05:07:17PM +0000, Michael Ackermann via Tinycc-devel > wrote: > > VSOBFS [...] i've placed this on a different page together with > > Minix to clarify upon what the differences are and why this seems > > insufficient > > to solve some important bootstrapping issues > > I appreciate if you refrain from spreading FUD. > > Can in happen that you are still not aware that VSOBFS indeed _provides_ > complete proven source-only-based > > 1. toolchains (at you choice, tinycc or gcc which has been tested) and > 2. the OS environment needed for building, i.e. the kernel and the > relevant utilities, at your choice, Minix or Linux > > Also you can have missed that you can repeat this process on virtually > any Posix-like platform and verify that the result will be the same, > reflecting only the sources used? > > Readily available are runnable tinycc-20a1ebf binaries and the matching > C-libraries for both Minix and Linux, again, with proven provenance > exclusively from the corresponding sources. > > To use them to build e.g. the latest tinycc in the same clean environment > is straightforward and fully scriptable, in Bourne sh. > > As an alternative, extracting the binaries to a compatible environment > of your choice (e.g. from the Linux disk image, to instead run under a > modern Linux x86_64 kernel) is of course trivial. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For extra clarity: > > Unaudited OSs och toolchains are sufficient to produce verifiably clean > toolchains solely from the corresponding sources. > > The "trusting trust" compiler backdoor problem does not stand any longer. > > Trying to imitate the 1970-s manual compiler bootstrapping on modern > hardware can be a nice exercise to study compilers and operating systems, > but pretending to solve a security problem this way is either a sign > of naïveté or of dishonesty. > > Cheers > /tccm > > _______________________________________________ > Tinycc-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
