[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130814205807.GS221@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 16:58:07 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: problems with dynamic linking since 0.9.1
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 10:47:08PM +0200, Jens wrote:
> >My recollection was that it failed to support -Bsymbolic-functions at
> >all and would produce an error when encountering it, so this makes me
> >wonder how generation of libc.so succeeded at all...
>
> The musl libc in this case is built with binutils-2.20.1, since the
> older binutils (2.17) didnt work. You helped me with this exact
> problem some months ago.
>
> I have a build-environment where I specify all the dependencies for
> each build. binutils-2.20.1 is then a dependency for musl (where
> binutils 2.17 is the default).
>
> So for my use-case I can always specify a later binutils as a
> dependency for all musl builds. Though dynamic linking is a low
> priority for me, since all resulting binaries must be statically
> linked.
OK. It may be that binutils-2.20.1, at least with the options we're
using, is somehow tagging the libc.so file as incompatible with older
binutils. This would be unfortunate, and it's an issue I'd like to
resolve if that's what it is. I'll see if I can reproduce it or if
someone else (preferably someone on x86_64) can do so.
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.
