[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 19:43:39 +0200
From: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>
To: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>, busybox <busybox@...ybox.net>, Felix Fietkau <nbd@....name>,
musl <musl@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: bbox: musl versus uclibc
As uclibc is increasingly aging, I am finally forced
to switch to musl: I'm bitten by a nasty bug in
getopt() - hush is using it in a slightly unusual way,
which uclibc does not expect.
I built a toolchain using
https://github.com/richfelker/musl-cross-make
(Rich, is this the thing I should be using?)
and it worked with no issues at all.
(I can probably only wish for the README
to also mention how to make this a _static_
toolchain... I have a box with 32-bit userspace,
would be awesome to be able to copy this fresh
64-bit toolchain to it and have it working).
Then I built busybox. Impressions:
Only a few options did not build:
EXTRA_COMPAT and FEATURE_VI_REGEX_SEARCH
failed because they need GNU regexp extensions.
FEATURE_MOUNT_NFS and FEATURE_INETD_RPC do not build
because they need rpc/rpc.h.
Not complaining, since them being in libc was a mistake
in the first place.
Now, the good news - musl has smaller data!
6695 bytes versus 7129 bytes for uclibc:
text data bss dec hex filename
894902 465 6664 902031 dc38f busybox.uclibc
912538 563 6132 919233 e06c1 busybox.musl
Whee!
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.
