Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 23:28:20 +0200 From: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com> To: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: undefined reference to `raise' with musl static toolchain Hello, Thanks for your feedback! On Fri, 11 May 2018 12:05:44 -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > 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 ? > > I don't think gcc is intended to work right in configurations where it > supports dynamic linking but the only libc available is static, unless > you pass -static, and I don't see a good way to make it work in that > case. You've only hit the tip of the iceberg; there's more stuff that > could break subtly when gcc is passing ld options that were intended > for dynamic linking, but ld actually ends up performing static > linking. It "working" with uClibc is just "getting lucky" (or > "unlucky" depending on your perspective about ignoring vs catching > unsafe things). OK. > If gcc doesn't have any option to tell it you're building a > static-only toolchain and make static linking the default, I see that > as something of an omission, and maybe we should try to get that added > to gcc. I don't see anything like that. Buildroot already builds gcc with --enable-static --disable-shared when building a static toolchain, and I don't see any other option that would be relevant, from a quick look. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons) Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
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.