Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 10:10:36 -0500 From: Bobby Bingham <koorogi@...rogi.info> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com, John Mudd <johnbmudd@...il.com> Subject: Re: Re: 32 bit musl? On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 04:44:44PM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > * John Mudd <johnbmudd@...il.com> [2016-10-09 10:29:02 -0400]: > > On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 9:55 PM, John Mudd <johnbmudd@...il.com> wrote: > > > > > Rich's musl-cross-make builds 32-bit executables that use musl libs. It > > > kills two birds with one stone. That's great. > > > > > > But it appears to expect musl libc to be installed in /lib for dynamically > > > linked executables. That's not an option for me. Is there a way I can > > > override this? > > > > > > > > Thanks Laurent, I used symbolic link in /lib for testing on my development > > machine. That works well. But I don't have reasonable access to root user > > when I deploy for production. > > deploy static linked binary or use explicit -Wl,-dynamic-linker Using -Wl,-dynamic-linker will result in binaries that will not run on normal musl systems. If you can deploy the musl libc alongside your program, you can invoke it as `/path/to/libc.so /path/to/your/program`. This can be done by a shell script you also deploy.
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.