Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 19:43:39 +0200 From: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com> To: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>, busybox <busybox@...ybox.net>, Felix Fietkau <nbd@....name>, musl <musl@...ts.openwall.com> Subject: bbox: musl versus uclibc As uclibc is increasingly aging, I am finally forced to switch to musl: I'm bitten by a nasty bug in getopt() - hush is using it in a slightly unusual way, which uclibc does not expect. I built a toolchain using https://github.com/richfelker/musl-cross-make (Rich, is this the thing I should be using?) and it worked with no issues at all. (I can probably only wish for the README to also mention how to make this a _static_ toolchain... I have a box with 32-bit userspace, would be awesome to be able to copy this fresh 64-bit toolchain to it and have it working). Then I built busybox. Impressions: Only a few options did not build: EXTRA_COMPAT and FEATURE_VI_REGEX_SEARCH failed because they need GNU regexp extensions. FEATURE_MOUNT_NFS and FEATURE_INETD_RPC do not build because they need rpc/rpc.h. Not complaining, since them being in libc was a mistake in the first place. Now, the good news - musl has smaller data! 6695 bytes versus 7129 bytes for uclibc: text data bss dec hex filename 894902 465 6664 902031 dc38f busybox.uclibc 912538 563 6132 919233 e06c1 busybox.musl Whee!
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.