[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5604077E.3080507@bluewin.ch>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 16:23:58 +0200
From: Ruben Winistörfer <r.winist@...ewin.ch>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Problems? compiling musl toolchain
Hi Rich
First of all thank you for the work your doing with the musl C library.
Fantastic.
Compared to others I'm quite new to Linux but even I see, that there's
far too much bloated software around.
Looking at some projects - e.g. GCC (GNU Compiler Collection) - I see
black for the programmer's future. At some point it will become
unmaintainable, if it isn't already...
I think that what you are doing with the C library is essential for the
future of Linux and other open source OS's and should be done with most
other software around today... Keep up the work!
At the moment I'm trying to get my homeserver project running. First I
went with Alpine Linux but ran into some - at least for me at that point
- unsolvable problems.
So I decided to give the Linux from Scratch idea another chance. A year
back I already tried to build a musl toolchain from scratch but failed
due to lack of knowledge and time...
This time it looks like I'm getting it done - but we'll see. ;-)
During bootstrapping and compiling the first parts of the toolchain
against musl I noticed two things. Maybe they're already known to you...
(A search function for the mailing list would be a nice thing...)
First: Compiling GCC 5.2.0 (and also 4.9.3) with musl 1.1.11 toolchain I
get a lot of warnings about missing sentinels in function calls.
Compiling GCC (same versions) with glibc toolchain there's no such
warning at all.
Replacing the function call sentinels 'NULL' with '(char *)NULL' in the
affected source code of GCC makes the warnings disappear.
My question: Does the reason for these warnings have some impact on the
health of the toolchain (is there something wrong?) or are they just a
byproduct of the correctness and standards-conformance of musl?
Second: Compiling with a musl 1.1.11, GCC 5.2.0 (and 4.9.3), Binutils
2.25.1 toolchain I get the following info (warning) over an over again:
...ld: copy reloc against protected `stdout' is dangerous
...ld: copy reloc against protected `stdin' is dangerous
...ld: copy reloc against protected `stderr' is dangerous
Same can be seen in Alpine Linux build logs: e.g.
http://build.alpinelinux.org/buildlogs/build-edge-x86_64/main/patchutils/patchutils-0.3.4-r0.log
Reason for these "warnings" seems to be a change in the linker from
binutils version 2.25 to 2.25.1.
Lines 2677 to 2680 in 'binutils-2.25.1/bfd/elflink.c' are new and in my
opinion the source of the issued warning.
My C knowledge is minimal but as far as I can tell this means that the
problem - if there is one at all - was already there before binutils
version 2.25.1, the linker just did not print the "warning".
I haven't seen this warning before using glibc. So i guess it has to be
musl-related.
What do you think? Is there a problem or can I ignore these warnings?
Some additional info:
I'm building on x86_64 for x86_64 using Alpine Linux 3.2.3 as host.
Thank you for the help - much appreciated.
Ruben Winistörfer
Content of type "text/html" skipped
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.
