[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2019 10:54:16 -0400
From: Jeffrey Walton <noloader@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: Chris Hall <musl@...h.uk>
Subject: Re: Detecting musl at compile and/or configure time
On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 8:29 AM Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org> wrote:
>
> On 6/30/19 7:03 AM, Chris Hall wrote:
> > I have a little build system which tries to detect the "usual suspects"
> > automatically, even without a full configure/cmake/etc. step. If the detection
> > process fails, it generates a warning and the user must (at least) add a '-Dxxx'
> > to suppress that.
> >
> > I confess I have only recently stumbled across musl. Perhaps systems which
> > default to musl are so rare that I can, as a practical matter, ignore them ?
> > The question then is whether to add a '-DqLIB_MUSL' gizmo to my build stuff --
> > so that "musl-gcc -DqLIB_MUSL" will do the trick.
>
> The fundamental problem with that is that you're not really checking for musl.
> You're checking for "the supported version (and options) of POSIX", "the
> supported version of the Linux UAPI", and "the set of extensions currently
> supported by musl", which all change over time. And some of them depend on who's
> distributing musl, as they may add their own customizations.
Or perhaps crafting workarounds for a buggy versions of musl. For
example, https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2019/06/26/10 .
Jeff
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.
