Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 12:36:17 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: compiling musl with pcc (i486-pc-linux-gnu) (was: compiling musl on x86_64 linux with pcc) On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 04:38:58PM +0200, u-igbb@...ey.se wrote: > On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:46:17AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > I have pcc 1.1.0.DEVEL 20130227 with pcc-libs-20130721 and it seems to > > still work fine with current musl. Note that some fixes are needed for > > I have got a musl instance compiled with pcc which seems to be usable. > A pcc compiled and linked against it reproduces itself and then > reproduces the same code for musl. > > The catch: > > Using --enable-optimize=no leads to a broken library (at least > concerning the variadic arguments). When I get a chance I'll see if I can reproduce this with my pcc toolchain or a new one. It won't necessarily be right away though. If so, I can probably track down the cause pretty quickly. Let me know if you find anything else about the cause. > > I just ran libc-test with libc.so built by pcc and confirmed that > > there are no non-math regressions versus gcc-built libc.so. (I did not > > check math in detail because there are lots of known math failures > > that are not serious.) > > Now we know that this is possible with the current version as well, > but not without optimization :) Yes. Thanks for reporting! Rich
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.