Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 13:03:12 -0400
From: "" <>
Subject: static musl-based gdb and -fPIC


While building a statically linked musl-based gdb, ld asked that libc.a 
be recompiled with -fPIC.  After recompiling musl with the above flag, 
gdb built successfully.  The reason I wanted to have a static gdb (other 
than the trivial ones) was to be able to debug a musl-based python.  The 
distribution's gdb has a dynamic dependency on a glibc-based libpython, 
and the two friends don't play well together.

Now that the static gdb is up and running, my questions are:

1) is there any reason not to "always" compile musl with -fPIC, at least 
on x86_64?

2) is there any reason to revert to the old build of Although I 
rebuilt musl because of libc.a, it turns out that the -fPIC flag also 
helped become much smaller: 699299 bytes, instead of 2767910 
bytes (musl v1.0.0, binutils v2.24).  Any other factors to consider?

Thanks for looking at this,

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.