From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/3085 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: vfprintf.c:(.text+0xc6c): undefined reference to `__signbitl' Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 02:21:29 -0400 Message-ID: <20130410062129.GB20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <1365570853.18069.61@driftwood> 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 1365574902 7689 80.91.229.3 (10 Apr 2013 06:21:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 06:21:42 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-3089-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Wed Apr 10 08:21:46 2013 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 1UPoPe-0006O1-6k for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:21:42 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 13976 invoked by uid 550); 10 Apr 2013 06:21:41 -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 13968 invoked from network); 10 Apr 2013 06:21:41 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1365570853.18069.61@driftwood> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:3085 Archived-At: On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:14:13AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote: > On 04/08/2013 03:41:28 PM, meres5@alpha.tmit.bme.hu wrote: > >Also Linux dropped the concept of static linking in practivce. > >Goodby kiss to > > No it didn't. Ulrich Drepper, the ex-glibc maintainer, had a > personal grudge against static linking. But the community did one of > this gcc->egcs things and abandoned glibc in droves for eglibc until > Ulrich bogged off to The Bank of Evil (Goldman Sachs), and now less > crazy people are in charge of glibc. To set the record straight, the current glibc maintainership considers static linking supported. I don't have the citations right off, but there have been several threads in which issues of current breakage with static linking, or avoiding future breakage, came up, and each time the position seems to have been that static linking is supported. I could probably dig them up if anybody's interested. Rich