[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:17:35 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Best place to discuss other lightweight libraries?
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 05:47:26PM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> * Kurt H Maier <khm-lists@...ma.in> [2013-04-24 07:48:52 -0400]:
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 01:18:43PM +0200, Daniel Cegie??ka wrote:
> > >
> > > btw. has anyone used go with musl?
> > >
> >
> > Go ships its own libc, which I'm fairly certain it depends on. It's
> > also not suitable as a system programming language and they dropped that
> > claim from their propaganda some time ago.
> >
>
> go has its own independent world (own toolchain, syscall wrappers,
> runtime, calling convention, stack management etc) but it can interact
> with libc through cgo
>
> so the question might be if anyone has tried cgo with musl
> and i guess nobody tried but it should work since cgo does
> not make much assumptions about the c runtime
>
> go is special in this respect, most other language runtime
> implementations build on top of libc so the interaction
> between c and said language is less trivial
>
> (there are some caveats in go as well: it does not call
> __libc_start_main on startup nor exit on exit so eg atexit
> handlers wont get called)
The idea of calling functions in libc without __libc_start_main ever
having been called sounds highly misguided and potentially dangerous.
In musl it might mostly work, but with glibc I don't see how it could
possibly work.
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
