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
