[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8RtFoVs=pfXmozTQML3MPeVQ3O3dGZZFQd8dZyU6nphHGh3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2011 12:46:47 +0200
From: Jens Staal <staal1978@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: musl path
I would definitely like the idea of the wrapper being a general tool
for various libc's.
Especially nice in order to play with the libc benchmarks (I tried
making AURs for them but could not figure out how to get the different
builds to use the different libcs installed on the system).
If the wrappers also could include a number of different compilers,
that would be great :)
2011/8/6 Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>:
> On Sat, Aug 06, 2011 at 10:14:33PM +0200, nicolas@...lier-web.com wrote:
>> > prefix=we_dont_use_prefix_at_all
>> > includedir=/usr/include
>> > libdir=/lib
>> > ALL_TOOLS=
>>
>> Thanks :)
>> And is there a way to remove the gcc wrapper ?
>
> Setting ALL_TOOLS blank will prevent it from being installed.
>
> By the way, I'm thinking of moving the gcc wrapper to a separate
> repository/tarball along with improving it, at some point in the near
> future. I don't really like the clutter of having it
> distributed/installed with musl, and as a separate standalone tool I
> could make it work with uclibc and other libcs as well..
>
> I'd welcome comments from users who like or dislike this idea.
>
> Rich
>
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.
