musl - static musl-based gdb and -fPIC

Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5353FDD0.6090903@midipix.org>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 13:03:12 -0400
From: "writeonce@...ipix.org" <writeonce@...ipix.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: static musl-based gdb and -fPIC

Greetings,

While building a statically linked musl-based gdb, ld asked that libc.a 
be recompiled with -fPIC.  After recompiling musl with the above flag, 
gdb built successfully.  The reason I wanted to have a static gdb (other 
than the trivial ones) was to be able to debug a musl-based python.  The 
distribution's gdb has a dynamic dependency on a glibc-based libpython, 
and the two friends don't play well together.

Now that the static gdb is up and running, my questions are:

1) is there any reason not to "always" compile musl with -fPIC, at least 
on x86_64?

2) is there any reason to revert to the old build of libc.so? Although I 
rebuilt musl because of libc.a, it turns out that the -fPIC flag also 
helped libc.so become much smaller: 699299 bytes, instead of 2767910 
bytes (musl v1.0.0, binutils v2.24).  Any other factors to consider?

Thanks for looking at this,
zg

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.