Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 17:08:35 -0400
From: stephen Turner <>
Subject: Re: libgcc errors

Thanks Samuel,
 I would use the musl-gcc wrapper (and have) however once gcc is compiled
from it then it does not support dynamic linking due to the lack of --host
(suggested) or --target (what seems more appropriate to me) specified in
the configure flags. If i do specify it then i get all kinds of crazy
errors which is why i consulted this mailing list in the first place since
i have tried googling my way through documentation for a month prior to
asking for help.

Its my inexperienced opinion that simply switching libs from glibc6 to musl
should be relatively easy compared to the full cross compile. To me it
seems like it would be as easy as specifying a new lib when rebuilding gcc
and that would be all.

let me ask you one quick question. I went to the musl-cross website on
bitbucket/gregorr and grabbed the patch for 4.7.3, is that a good working
patch and gcc version? (all my errors seem to stem from compiling gcc) and
is there any special way to download it or just click the raw button and
wget the link  then "patch -Np1 -i"?

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Samuel Holland <> wrote:

> On October 9, 2014 7:13:42 AM CDT, Andrew Bradford <
>> wrote:
> >Could you please provide more info on why you think the embedded Cross
> >LFS way [1] is more complicated than is needed?  How could it be made
> >more simple?  I'm happy to take suggestions for improvement.
> >
> >[1]:
> >
> >For the most part the toolchain building portion of embedded CLFS
> >follows Gregor's musl-cross.
> Because he doesn't need a cross compiler, only library isolation. Even the
> LFS method is more work than absolutely necessary. You could compile musl
> with your host GCC, then compile binutils and GCC with musl-gcc, and be
> done with it. I recommend the LFS way because 1) it works with C++ and 2)
> some people claim musl-gcc makes unreliable GCC builds.
> Cross LFS makes sense when you're planning to use musl on another
> machine/architecture, but not (in my opinion) for making a native
> toolchain. I have no problems with CLFS; I just think it's the wrong tool
> for the job.
> >Thanks,
> >Andrew
> --
> Regards,
> Samuel Holland <>

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.