Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 16:29:49 -0400
From: "" <>
Subject: Re: static musl-based gdb and -fPIC

On 04/20/2014 01:03 PM, 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 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?

Pardon!  Of the two files above, only the larger one had debug 
information.   With -fPIC and debug information, the current size of 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.