From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/3185 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Re: go support (was: Best place to discuss other lightweight libraries?) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 09:42:44 -0400 Message-ID: <20130424134244.GH20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <1366683267.18069.155@driftwood> <5176FE83.3010301@gentoo.org> <5177DE10.30009@barfooze.de> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1366810973 24321 80.91.229.3 (24 Apr 2013 13:42:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 13:42:53 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-3189-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Wed Apr 24 15:42:58 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 1UUzyL-000864-GB for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:42:57 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 10226 invoked by uid 550); 24 Apr 2013 13:42:56 -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 10215 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2013 13:42:56 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5177DE10.30009@barfooze.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:3185 Archived-At: On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 03:28:48PM +0200, John Spencer wrote: > On 04/24/2013 01:18 PM, Daniel Cegiełka wrote: > > > >btw. has anyone used go with musl? > > > > i tried to build gcc 4.7.2 with go support (--enable-languages=c,c++,go) > and that fails due to a lack of set/getcontext(). > (see pkg/gcc472 in sabotage) > > according to rich, adding that to musl requires a non-trivial amount > of arch specific asm. Yes, but it is a wanted feature, so I wouldn't mind it getting done. It was even part of the standard prior to POSIX 2008, and the reason for removing it was stupid. (The reason was that the makecontext function's calling convention is bogus and impossible to support properly, but they could have fixed this by deprecating the use of the variadic arguments in any way except passing a single void* argument, rather than deprecating the whole set of interfaces.) > the go runtime in the gcc tree should be fixed to have a fallback > when this functionality is missing (if possible), > so it maybe be needed to ask on the go mailing list. The only fallback is to use C11 or POSIX threads in place of coroutines, or shipping their own set/getcontext code for each arch... Rich