Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 23:19:10 +0200 From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: New INSTALL guide, request for feedback * Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> [2011-09-21 16:03:37 -0400]: > Feedback would be appreciated! > looks reasonable sometimes i use musl without installation - checkout git repo - edit config.mak, run make - use the git repo include/ and lib/ paths directly with -isystem, -L and the -nostd*, crt*.o, -dynamic-linker etc hackery works well for single file compilations (without dynamic linking to other libraries) i have a makefile setup for this and just copy it around when i want to do some quick testing > gcc 3.x and 4.x are known to work. pcc and LLVM/clang may work but > are untested, and pcc is known to have some bugs. > when building libc.so with other compiler than gcc the -lgcc in the makefile should be (obviously) changed (this is the only change needed for pcc that i know of) (when compiling other code with pcc+musl a -Dalloca=__builtin_alloca is needed as well, glibc does this define so i guess that's why they don't) > Correctly-written build systems should not need -D_GNU_SOURCE as part > of $CC, but many programs do not use feature-test macros correctly and actually musl does not do fine grain feature testing wrt _BSD_SOURCE so some correct programs expecting bsd stuff may need _GNU_SOURCE too (eg quad_t or some xsi functions with bsd origin)
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.