Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 10:19:14 +0300
From: Dmitry Golovin <>
To: "" <>
Subject: Re: clang/musl/linux?

31.08.2018, 09:30, "Fāng-ruì Sòng" <>:
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 6:38 AM Dmitry Golovin <> wrote:
>> 07.08.2018, 16:19, "Jon Chesterfield" <>:
>>> I'm interested in using a toolchain containing clang, musl and the llvm C++ stack from a glibc linux host. There is some patchy documentation on doing this which suggests it is possible with some relatively minor patches. Most of the links are from a few years ago.
>>> Does anyone on this list use a similar setup today? If so, does it work for you?
>>> Essentially I'm hoping for guidance on whether the end result of the cmake hackery would be stable enough to use as my daily toolchain, before grinding through the inevitable plumbing.
>>> Thanks!
>>> Jon
>> Unfortunately, it's not possible to build mainline linux with clang right now. Currently most efforts on patching the kernel are combined in this repo: (it is also not ready to be compiled yet).
>> You can also check my GNU-free toolchain as a starting point:
>> It uses musl, clang, lld and libcxx with very little patching.
>> Regards,
>> Dmitry
> Has anyone tried building llvm+musl on regular glibc-based Linux distributions (not Alpine, ...)? I would like to test (ninja check-all) if I know the instructions.

There should not be any problems building LLVM and musl on glibc-based distro. The reason why I'm building on Alpine is that I want my llvm and clang to be linked against musl (this is what I need patches for). On a glibc-based distro no patches are needed and you can use musl-clang wrapper to produce binaries linked against musl.


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.