From: Shiz <hi@shiz.me>
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] build: overhaul wrapper script system for multiple wrapper support
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 16:15:36 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0A8B4259-3D1F-42FA-BB0C-8DE6A63F89B6@shiz.me> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150601031829.GW17573@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1824 bytes --]
> On 01 Jun 2015, at 05:18, Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> wrote:
>
> Even if that's fixed, it's also a problem, I think, that yes/auto are
> equated. Presumably someone using --enable-wrapper with an existing
> musl-targeted toolchain would want to bypass the musl-native detection
> and force the wrapper (whichever one is appropriate for their
> compiler) to be built.
You’re right, this is something that should be addressed. I’ll fix that.
> This is especially important to have if the
> musl-native test has false positives, which I think it will if we take
> the following approach I'd like to take:
>
> Instead of testing for musl-native, test whether the toolchain is
> targetting another known non-musl target, which is basically a matter
> of #ifdef __GLIBC__. This ensures that the wrapper is never auto-built
> for a musl-native system (which could happen before if the musl-native
> test failed) and avoids compiler-specific hacks; we can simply have a
> general test for known-non-native-toolchain.
I’m not sure I’m a big fan of this approach. It’s perfectly reasonable for
targets to exist which are both not musl and don’t define __GLIBC__.
I think a much more reasonable approach would be to check the target triple
($CC -dumpmachine) for *musl* - I believe any compiler which would target
musl systems would have this in its triple right now. The reason why I
omitted the detection in the initial patch was because I wanted some more
time to think the approach over, I should’ve mentioned that in the message.
clang, gcc and cparser all support -dumpmachine, and we already presume a
gcc-ish command line interface for a lot of things, so I wouldn’t see any
harm in taking this approach. pcc doesn’t support this sadly, however.
Any thoughts?
-S
[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-01 14:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-29 16:48 [PATCH 1/2] add musl-clang, a wrapper for system clang installs Shiz
2015-05-29 16:55 ` [PATCH 2/2] build: overhaul wrapper script system for multiple wrapper support Shiz
2015-06-01 3:18 ` Rich Felker
2015-06-01 14:15 ` Shiz [this message]
2015-06-01 14:47 ` Rich Felker
2015-06-01 15:39 ` Shiz
2015-06-01 16:03 ` Rich Felker
2015-05-29 17:03 ` [PATCH 1/2] add musl-clang, a wrapper for system clang installs Rich Felker
2015-05-29 17:11 ` Shiz
2015-05-29 17:13 ` Rich Felker
2015-05-29 17:35 ` Shiz
2015-05-29 18:43 ` [PATCH v2] " Shiz
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=0A8B4259-3D1F-42FA-BB0C-8DE6A63F89B6@shiz.me \
--to=hi@shiz.me \
--cc=musl@lists.openwall.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.vuxu.org/mirror/musl/
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).