Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 13:03:12 -0400 From: "writeonce@...ipix.org" <writeonce@...ipix.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: static musl-based gdb and -fPIC Greetings, 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 libc.so? Although I rebuilt musl because of libc.a, it turns out that the -fPIC flag also helped libc.so 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, zg
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.