[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 02:21:29 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: vfprintf.c:(.text+0xc6c): undefined reference to
`__signbitl'
On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:14:13AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 04/08/2013 03:41:28 PM, meres5@...ha.tmit.bme.hu wrote:
> >Also Linux dropped the concept of static linking in practivce.
> >Goodby kiss to
>
> No it didn't. Ulrich Drepper, the ex-glibc maintainer, had a
> personal grudge against static linking. But the community did one of
> this gcc->egcs things and abandoned glibc in droves for eglibc until
> Ulrich bogged off to The Bank of Evil (Goldman Sachs), and now less
> crazy people are in charge of glibc.
To set the record straight, the current glibc maintainership considers
static linking supported. I don't have the citations right off, but
there have been several threads in which issues of current breakage
with static linking, or avoiding future breakage, came up, and each
time the position seems to have been that static linking is supported.
I could probably dig them up if anybody's interested.
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.
