[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 06:53:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: idunham@...abit.com
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Hello
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 21:43:13 -0400 (EDT)
> idunham@...abit.com wrote:
>
>> > Some news from that point.
>> >
>> > I spent some time building the same X11 tree as my host system uses
>> > (X11R76) and now I can say that it works almost unmodified with musl
>> > 0.9.1. Some notes about it:
>> > - all libs compiled normally except xcb and Mesa. XCB deals with XML
>> > and python that I did not installed, Mesa depends on g++.
>> > (Unfortunately all X libs have now rpath hardcoded, thanks to
>> > libtool's idiotic behavior. Oh.)
>> > - apps compiled normally (some failed due to unset CFLAGS, was too
>> > lazy to fix the build.sh)
>> > - xorg-server-1.11.2:
>> > - did not linked with musl 0.9.1 (missing ioperm() and iopl()
>> > syscall wrappers, added manually).
>> Are these wrappers available somewhere online (in a git tree or
>> something)?
>
> I added them manually, they are just one-line system call wrappers.
> Attached patch just adds them as an additional files, without declaring
> them in headers (I declared them in unistd.h, but not sure, maybe
> wrong place for linux-specific calls).
>
Wrong place: sys/io.h (not yet provided by musl) is where those go. _
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.
