Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 17:59:01 +0200
From: Thomas Petazzoni <>
To: Szabolcs Nagy <>
Cc:, Rich Felker <>
Subject: Re: undefined reference to `raise' with musl static


Thanks for your feedback.

On Wed, 9 May 2018 17:24:37 +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:

> there can be many reasons.. 
> e.g. if mktime in uclibc-ng happens to reference raise then it
> would get linked in independently of libgcc.

In the static binary linked against uClibc, there are two references to


__GI_abort is reference from _start, so I guess this means that
__GI_abort is always pulled in, therefore __GI_raise is always pulled
in, and __aeabi_idiv0 is happy.

Now my question remains: do you consider it normal that -static is
required, or do you consider it a bug of the musl/gcc integration that
-static is required even when the only variant available of the library
is the static one ?


Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering

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.