Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 10:44:28 +0000
From: Oliver Schneider <>
Subject: Re: for the wiki: a __MUSL__ alternative

Hey Rich,

On 2014-05-01 12:51, Rich Felker wrote:
> 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.
you're right and I admire how steadfast you are in your resolve.

Initially I desired to have this myself so that I could give attribution
within the program depending on whether it was built with musl-libc or
another libc. Right now I have simple used a define on the command line
to tell whether it's a build with musl-libc or not.

Also, I don't think the proposed solution is very elegant. In this case
it'd be better to pass parameters using the specs file, no?

// Oliver

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.