From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/2044 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Szabolcs Nagy Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: musl for ARM Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 18:39:32 +0200 Message-ID: <20121002163932.GB24157@port70.net> References: <20121002134843.GV254@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1349196000 11884 80.91.229.3 (2 Oct 2012 16:40:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 16:40:00 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-2045-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Tue Oct 02 18:40:06 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TJ5Ve-0001sh-HK for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2012 18:39:50 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 20289 invoked by uid 550); 2 Oct 2012 16:39:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 20281 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2012 16:39:44 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121002134843.GV254@brightrain.aerifal.cx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:2044 Archived-At: * Rich Felker [2012-10-02 09:48:43 -0400]: > One area you can get vastly better performance with musl is > application startup overhead. Especially with static linking, but even > with dynamic linking if your only .so is libc, the startup time is > 2-5x faster than glibc, which really makes a difference to the runtime > of shell scripts (like configure) that invoke tons of external > programs. > i don't see this mentioned on the libc comparision table is this the self-exec benchmark? > > However, when building busybox, there are some header files clashes, > > resulting in conflicting types. > > An example of it: > > --------------------- > > In file included from > > /opt/cross/arm-linux-musleabi/lib/gcc/arm-linux-musleabi/4.7.1/../../../../arm-linux-musleabi/include/linux/kd.h:3:0, > > from console-tools/kbd_mode.c:23: > > /opt/cross/arm-linux-musleabi/lib/gcc/arm-linux-musleabi/4.7.1/../../../../arm-linux-musleabi/include/linux/types.h:12:26: > > error: conflicting types for ???fd_set??? > > In file included from > > /opt/cross/arm-linux-musleabi/lib/gcc/arm-linux-musleabi/4.7.1/../../../../arm-linux-musleabi/include/sys/time.h:9:0, > > from include/libbb.h:45, > > from console-tools/kbd_mode.c:22: > > /opt/cross/arm-linux-musleabi/lib/gcc/arm-linux-musleabi/4.7.1/../../../../arm-linux-musleabi/include/sys/select.h:25:3: > > note: previous declaration of ???fd_set??? was here > > --------------------- > > It looks like these kernel headers are not sanitized for compatibility > with userspace..? > linux/types.h only typedefs fd_set ifdef __KERNEL__ so userspace code shouldnt see fd_set at all, only __kernel_fd_set i think busybox is doing something wrong there