Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 16:29:49 -0400 From: "writeonce@...ipix.org" <writeonce@...ipix.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: static musl-based gdb and -fPIC On 04/20/2014 01:03 PM, writeonce@...ipix.org wrote: > 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? Pardon! Of the two files above, only the larger one had debug information. With -fPIC and debug information, the current size of libc.so is 2379780 bytes. > > 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.