Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 20:53:36 -0400 From: "writeonce@...ipix.org" <writeonce@...ipix.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: for the wiki: a __MUSL__ alternative On 05/02/2014 06:44 AM, Oliver Schneider wrote: > 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 > > As far as elegance goes, you're right (I wasn't aiming at too much elegance with that kind of a temporary solution). But if I understand you correctly(*), two reasons not to use the .specs file are: 1) there are native musl compilers that do not use the wrapper's .specs file; and 2) by turning __MUSL__ into a built-in macro of such native compilers, and likewise by defining __MUSL__ in the .specs file, you'll be making the macro available to everybody without requiring extra effort, which I believe is what we'd like to avoid. (*) I read 'specs' as a reference to musl-gcc.specs -zg (regretfully for bringing this up in the first place...)
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.