Re: [dev] Re: obase - moving forward?

From: Szabolcs Nagy <>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 17:11:34 +0200

* Jens Staal <> [2012-06-06 09:49:02 +0200]:
> - binaries do not execute (!) - the Arch GCC bug for musl recently discussed?

you mean the .gnu.hash nonsense?

that should not matter for statically linked programs..

if you have contact with the arch packagers then
tell them not to hard code --hash-style=gnu into
the compiler

gnu hash is non-standard and does not make much sense
(unless you use broken programs like firefox or
openoffice with large amount of symbols in dso
outside the main executable for no good reason,
then it can be 2x faster to load than standard sysv
hash however there is --hash-style=both for
situations like that)

> -not built in bin:

most of the listed tools are known to work with gcc+musl

> ... so compared to the previous glibc (main) branch there are some
> serious costs at the moment...
> Hopefully the missing functionality can be fixed.
> (I will also try to get heirloom static against musl)

heirloom tools can be compiled with musl
after some minor cleanups

> Ps. sorry if this starts to be off topic for the suckless dev list Ds.

i suggest sending arch specific complaints
to an arch list and musl specific ones to
the musl mailing list

btw there are various musl based distros
Received on Wed Jun 06 2012 - 17:11:34 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Wed Jun 06 2012 - 17:24:03 CEST