Re: Hi and a few questions

[Richard Pennington <rich@pennware.com>]

On Sunday, May 20, 2012 07:53:16 PM Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
[snip]
> > (http://posixtest.sourceforge.net) three ways:
> > 	1. with gcc/glibc, x86_64
> > 	2. with clang/LLVM/glibc, x86_64
> > 	3. with clang/LLVM/musl, x86_64
> 
> nice, unfortunately it does not seem to be maintained
> and it's not updated to posix 2008:
> "... error: implicit declaration of function 'usleep'"
> 
Yeah, I noticed that right away. I've made a lot of changes to the test suite 
already to modernice it for gcc/glibc and clang/LLVM/glibc.

[snip]
> many tests are broken and thus the build fails eg
> 
> "functional/threads/schedule/1-1.c:22:1: error: "_XOPEN_SOURCE" redefined"
> they shouldn't define that in the source file (without undefing it first)
> 
> "conformance/interfaces/pthread_key_create/1-2.c:44: error: control reaches
> end of non-void function" there are a couple of similar bad tests
> 
> "conformance/interfaces/aio_read/9-1.c: In function 'main':
> conformance/interfaces/aio_read/9-1.c:59: error: implicit declaration of
> function 'open'" they use open without including fcntl.h
> 
> etc

Many of these problems have already been fixed in my copy.

> 
> > Now for my questions:
> > 	1. Can musl be built out of the source tree? I'd like to be able to build
> > 	
> > 	    for different processors in different directories.
> 
> what do you mean by out of the source tree?
> you can set an install prefix for make install
> 
> if you want to have the .o files for each target in a separate build
> directory then you can have several git clones or hack the Makefile

I've decided not to change the build rules much, if any. It doesn't take long 
to build the library anyway, so building several times after cleaning is not a 
big deal.

> 
> > 	2. Are the include/bits files the only include files that differ between
> > 	
> >             processors?
> 
> no, see eg src/thread/$ARCH or src/math/$ARCH

Will do.

> 
> > 	3. Are people actively working on other musl ports? I'd wouldn't want to
> > 	
> > 	    duplicate their efforts.
> 
> i don't think so
> mips port was mentioned on irc at some point but i don't think anyone took
> it up

Thanks for the info.

-Rich