[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
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.
