[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3767f116-4a52-e9ef-a2ee-df1c23719e34@gmch.uk>
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2019 13:03:27 +0100
From: Chris Hall <musl@...h.uk>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Fwd: Re: Detecting musl at compile and/or configure time
On 29/06/2019 14:27, A. Wilcox wrote:
> On 06/29/19 06:48, Chris Hall wrote:
>>
>> Is there a supported way of detecting that one is building against
>> the musl libc ?
...
> The musl libc specifically does not have a FTM (feature test macro)
> because it aims to be an exact implementation of C11 / POSIX and
> therefore it has no "quirks" to detect.
I too aim for perfection, but find that I approach it asymptotically :-)
However, restating the question in those terms: how should I detect that
one is *not* building against some library which is *not* musl ? [Given
that other libraries may be equally discrete.]
...
> See here for more information:
>
> https://wiki.musl-libc.org/faq.html#Q:-Why-is-there-no-%3Ccode%3E__MUSL__%3C/code%3E-macro?
FWIW: I read https://www.musl-libc.org/faq.html, but did not also find
the wiki's FAQ :-(
> Is there a reason you wish to detect musl at configure/compile time?
> Perhaps if we knew the reason, we could help you make your code more
> portable and/or not require such detection.
I have a little build system which tries to detect the "usual suspects"
automatically, even without a full configure/cmake/etc. step. If the
detection process fails, it generates a warning and the user must (at
least) add a '-Dxxx' to suppress that.
I confess I have only recently stumbled across musl. Perhaps systems
which default to musl are so rare that I can, as a practical matter,
ignore them ? The question then is whether to add a '-DqLIB_MUSL' gizmo
to my build stuff -- so that "musl-gcc -DqLIB_MUSL" will do the trick.
Thanks,
Chris
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.
