Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 00:02:11 -0400 From: Michael McConville <mmcco@...olab.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Add support for amd64 target Rich Felker wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:33:41PM -0400, Michael McConville wrote: > > For what it's worth, the build then survives until linking. I > > haven't had a chance to diagnose that problem yet. > > What are the linker errors you hit? It's not surprising that compiling > would work since no files external to the musl source tree are > accessed during compiling, but linking could bring in lots of issues, > and runtime even more. To clarify: I thought the platform-specific bits would cause more problems at runtime than at compile-time, but the more I think about that the less it makes sense. You're definitely right - getting a reliably working port will take a good deal of work (hence it being offered as a three-month project). It's just nice to know that the actual C code is reasonably portable.
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.