[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160318040211.GA80609@thinkpad.swarthmore.edu>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 00:02:11 -0400
From: Michael McConville <mmcco@...olab.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Add support for amd64 target
Rich Felker wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:33:41PM -0400, Michael McConville wrote:
> > For what it's worth, the build then survives until linking. I
> > haven't had a chance to diagnose that problem yet.
>
> What are the linker errors you hit? It's not surprising that compiling
> would work since no files external to the musl source tree are
> accessed during compiling, but linking could bring in lots of issues,
> and runtime even more.
To clarify: I thought the platform-specific bits would cause more
problems at runtime than at compile-time, but the more I think about
that the less it makes sense. You're definitely right - getting a
reliably working port will take a good deal of work (hence it being
offered as a three-month project). It's just nice to know that the
actual C code is reasonably portable.
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.
