Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 13:28:48 +0100 From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: musl + libc++ * Lei Zhang <zhanglei.april@...il.com> [2016-03-22 20:05:29 +0800]: > On Mar 22, 2016, at 7:48 PM, Luca Barbato <lu_zero@...too.org> wrote: > > > > On 22/03/16 04:43, Lei Zhang wrote: > >> 2016-03-22 7:39 GMT+08:00 Hayden Livingston <halivingston@...il.com>: > >> > >>> Have folks gotten around using musl + libc++ (from the llvm project)? > >>> > >>> I'm trying to get a setup where all my dependencies can be moved to > >>> musl and libc++ to build static executables. > >>> > >> > >> I've tried to do about the same thing before and failed because libc++ > >> depends on some functions not implemented in musl yet, like strtoll_l() > >> and __printf_chk() IIRC. > > > > Nothing should directly use __printf_chk() how did you get that symbol > > there?. > > Well, I manually linked a toy C++ program with musl and libc++, and when I ran the program the dynamic linker complained about not finding a bunch of symbols, including strtoll_l, __printf_chk, etc. Perhaps I mistakenly messed musl with glibc somehow... > you probably used a libc++ built against glibc. that should work on x86_64 if you provide the missing symbols (e.g. LD_PRELOAD a dso with a dummy strtoll_l and __printf_chk). but it is better to build the entire toolchain for musl instead of doing musl-gcc like wrapping for c++ even if you can get the wrapper to work. e.g. a libstdc++ built against glibc works for simple things but can be broken for multi-threaded code.
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.