Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 09:07:08 -0400
From: "" <>
Subject: Re: for the wiki: a __MUSL__ alternative

On 05/01/2014 08:51 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 03:41:19AM -0400, wrote:
>> Greetings,
>> Since requests for a __MUSL__ macro still come in every now and
>> then, I thought it might be useful to add to the wiki the following
>> text at the end of the section "why is there no __MUSL__ macro?"
>> If you have a situation that (temporarily) requires that you can
>> identify the libc being used, consider the following trick: as part
>> of your configuration script, locate, then create a symlink
>> from to /some/temporary/folder/ldd, and finally execute
>> /some/temporary/folder/ldd 2>&1 | grep 'musl libc';  Based on the
>> outcome, you could then add -D__MUSL__ to the relevant environment
>> variable.
> The whole point of the wiki answer is that doing this is wrong. Adding
> a "here's a way to do it anyway" rather defeats the purpose and is
> just going to get us more trouble in the long term. In any case, this
> only works when dynamic linking is available, and it requires the
> ability to run programs for the target which breaks cross compiling
> and therefore violates one of the biggest rules for built scripts.
> Rich
You are absolutely right, and my thought was to provide a _temporary_ 
solution until everyone get convinced...  but I certainly see your 
point.  It later occurred to me that this won't work with 
cross-compilation, and while there is an even more deviant trick for 
that scenario as well, this time I'm keeping it to myself;-)


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.