[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53542E3D.5020600@midipix.org>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 16:29:49 -0400
From: "writeonce@...ipix.org" <writeonce@...ipix.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: static musl-based gdb and -fPIC
On 04/20/2014 01:03 PM, writeonce@...ipix.org wrote:
> 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?
Pardon! Of the two files above, only the larger one had debug
information. With -fPIC and debug information, the current size of
libc.so is 2379780 bytes.
>
> Thanks for looking at this,
> zg
>
>
>
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.
