[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 11:46:17 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: u-igbb@...ey.se
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: compiling musl on x86_64 linux with pcc
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:34:57AM +0200, u-igbb@...ey.se wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:28:08AM +0200, u-igbb@...ey.se wrote:
> > Do you have a reference to which versions of musl and pcc
> > did work together? (May be the musl compilation went through, like
> > it does now, but the resulting library was not fully healthy either?)
>
> Found http://www.etalabs.net/musl/oldversions.html which says
> that musl-0.7.10.tar.gz - May 17, 2011 was good with pcc (presumably
> of the same time). I guess too much happened since then on both sides.
I have pcc 1.1.0.DEVEL 20130227 with pcc-libs-20130721 and it seems to
still work fine with current musl. Note that some fixes are needed for
pcc-libs:
- You need to remove the broken csu files and replace them with
symlinks to the musl files.
- You need to add __attribute__((__visibility__("hidden"))) to all
external functions in libpcc.
- You need to add -fPIC to the CFLAGS for building libpcc or you get a
broken libpcc (containing textrels) that can't be used for building
libc.so and that's harmful for use with any other shared libs.
I just ran libc-test with libc.so built by pcc and confirmed that
there are no non-math regressions versus gcc-built libc.so. (I did not
check math in detail because there are lots of known math failures
that are not serious.)
Let me know if you have any further questions about my setup.
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.
