Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 09:33:36 -0300 From: Carlos Breviglieri <carbrevi@...il.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Aboriginal musl support Hey, sorry for the late reply... I saw the announcement at the aboriginal mailing list and confused it with musl's. The link is already posted, but, for reference here it goes. You can check out the commits for details at http://landley.net/hg/aboriginal/rss-log and http://landley.net/notes.html """""" Subject: [Aboriginal] basic musl support is in. To enable it for a given target, comment out the UCLIBC_CONFIG stanza in the sources/targets/$ARCH file. All I can really say at the moment is that it compiles for i686. (That's the ccwrap rewrite, basic script tweaks, and a patch to gcc to not use a nonstandard type name.) Sorry that took so long. It was a lot of debugging. (And now to test build more stuff...) Rob """""" Regards, Carlos On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 2:46 AM, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 05, 2014 at 11:18:29PM -0700, Isaac Dunham wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 11:25:46PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 09:40:10PM -0500, Samuel Holland wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2014-07-04 at 01:14 +0100, Laurent Bercot wrote: > > > > > On 03/07/2014 22:22, Carlos Breviglieri wrote: > > > > > > I also keep an eye on aboriginal linux for other architectures > testings, > > > > > > which, just now, announced basic musl compatibility... sweet. > > > > > > > > > > Where did you see that announcement ? I can see nothing on > landley.net. > > > > > I've been waiting for the Aboriginal native musl toolchains for a > while > > > > > and chafing at the bit. It would be sweet if they were finally > ready. > > > > > (Rob, can you confirm/deny ?) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://lists.landley.net/pipermail/aboriginal-landley.net/2014-July/001399.html > > > > > > Has anyone had a chance to look at this yet? It would be nice if > > > someone with experience with distros/building could help check for > > > common breakage/pitfalls. I know Aboriginal is using a much older > > > toolchain than most musl users, so that might also have some new > > > > Similar version (4.2.1) to bootstrap-linux (4.2.2?), also the oldest > > supported by musl-cross; I used GCC 3.4 and 4.2.1 with some patches > > for the latter from both musl-cross and Aboriginal. > > OK good to know. > > > > issues that others haven't encountered. I suspect there might still be > > > issues with libgcc.a symbol visibility that would result in broken > > > binaries when dynamic linking against musl; this should be easy to > > > check. > > > > See the threads of Jan 11/12. > > (Rob could not duplicate.) > > Yes, that's why I suspect the bug may still be present: he was only > concerned with finding a test case showing it breaking something and > was not convinced merely by the presence of the visible symbols that > break the ABI. > > This is part of why I think it may be beneficial to work around broken > libgcc.a on musl's side: the breakage is subtle when it happens and > it's hard to convince users that there really is a bug. > > Rich > Content of type "text/html" skipped
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.