Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 15:44:23 +0900
From: Владимир Смирнов <>
Subject: Re: Any plans on MMU-less support?

I already using uClibc so i know that i hardly ever have fork or dynamic
linkage. It's all suitable for me.
So whats up with mmap and startup code?
I wonder on minimal working set of that all :-)

2014-03-31 0:01 GMT+09:00 Szabolcs Nagy <>:

> * Smirnov Vladimir <> [2014-03-30 15:49:08 +0900]:
> > I wonder if MUSL have such roadmap or there is any hackish way to
> > add that support (may be some unoffitial patches).
> > My problem that i've stucked with old gcc toolchain and uClibc
> > supporting one widely used ARMv4 MMUless chip.
> looking at uClibc the main differences in a no-mmu system:
> fork is not available so related functions have to be changed/disabled
> (vfork, daemon, wordexp, forkpty, pthread_atfork)
> brk is not available so malloc needs to change
> mmap may need MAP_UNINITIALIZED flag for performance
> (and MAP_FIXED flag will fail)
> memory management related things may need to be changed/disabled
> (mprotect?,mlock,msync,..)
> for dynamic linking ldso and libc startup code may need some change
> (some targets (not arm) need fdpic or dsbt elf support)
> (others can use a shared flat binary format)
> pthread may need smaller default stack and more careful stack usage
> arm startup code needs a change according to
> and you may need to fix various toolchain issues..

Content of type "text/html" skipped

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.