[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20836.50.0.229.11.1343015390.squirrel@lavabit.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2012 20:49:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: idunham@...abit.com
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Hello
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 07:09:25PM -0400, idunham@...abit.com wrote:
>> I've been getting a little impatient waiting to see if anything happens,
>> so I started going through orc's patch and revising it.
>
> Sorry, I've had fairly little in the way of contiguous blocks of time
> to work on stuff over the past few weeks. Trying to catch up a bit...
Not directed at you in particular, and I understand that.
> I need to look back at the archives but it seems a lot of this patch
> was about getting glibc binaries to run with musl. Can we break the
> efforts to integrate it down into 3 steps:
I broke it down into 10 patches, taking roughly the same approach.
> 1. Linux API-level stuff musl should be supporting regardless of glibc
> compatibility.
See patches 1-4. These are the missing syscalls.
According to what orc was saying, patch 1 was what he needed for Xorg.
Gregor also said he could use it.
> 2. glibc-compatibility symbols that need to be exported to get
> high-demand binary blobs (like video drivers) working.
> 3. Additional glibc-compatibility symbols, which may or may not be
> wanted/needed/desirable in the long term, and which we can at least
> defer addressing for a while.
orc would know better than I, but it *seemed* that he was saying that
everything in his patch fell in 1 or 2 ...
>> While looking at arm, I noticed that x86/mips gas uses @function while
>> arm uses %function...is there a reason for this?
>
> I think it's just a difference in the asm syntax rules for different
> targets. They're all very inconsistent...
OK, thanks.
>> >> > Probably you will want to add:
>> >> > - weak_aliases for __underscores
>> >> Except most of them should be in the opposite direction. Especially
>> >> for functions like strxfrm_l where we'll eventually want the ISO C
>> >> "foo" function to depend on the POSIX "foo_l" function, the latter
>> >> will need its real name to be the __-prefixed version.
>> Are there any of these that should not be the other way around?
> Need to review again...
See patches 5-10 (except the finite() patch)
I figured that any *isoc99* or __*_internal aliases were for ABI only and
left them as orc had it.
Everything in src/locale/ I assumed (!) was not ISO C99, and did them "in
the opposite direction".
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.
