Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 09:10:04 +0200
From: Felix Janda <>
Cc: Khem Raj <>, Luca Barbato <>
Subject: Re: Dynamic linker name

Lei Zhang wrote:
> 2016-06-14 23:56 GMT+08:00 Lei Zhang <>:
> > 2016-06-14 23:11 GMT+08:00 Rafael EspĂ­ndola <>:
> >> Sorry, but my understanding is that r272662 is correct for x86, no?
> >>
> >> We can definitely add support for more arches with musl if someone sends a
> >> patch to the list.
> >
> > If no one intends to do this, I can prepare further patches and
> > relevant test cases for other archs.
> Now I'm determining the $ARCH field in musl's dynamic linker name for
> non-x86 archs. After reading these two patches (thanks to their
> authors):

You should really take a look at musl's configure script.

> I got the following list:
> i386
> x86_64
> arm
> armhf
> armeb
> armebhf
> aarch64
> aarch64_be
> mips
> mipsel
> mips64
> mipsel64el // this one looks weird
> powerpc
> powerpc64
> Is this list comprehensive? Is there anything wrong? I have no access
> to non-x86 machines at the moment, thus no way to verify them.

As mentioned by Szabolcs Nagy, the patches are not correct for mips:
It should be "mips64el".

For mips* and powerpc* there are also "-sf" variants. There are also
"mipsr6*" and "mipsn32*" which might or might not be supported by llvm.

> BTW, I leaved out x32 on purpose, since musl's support for it is
> experimental (right?), and it requires yet another environment type
> "muslx32" in LLVM.

x32 support has been in musl for many releases, whereas mips64 has
not landed in a released version of musl, yet...

> Thanks,
> Lei

Thanks for moving forward and getting actually something merged.


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.