From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/3190 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Best place to discuss other lightweight libraries? Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:17:35 -0400 Message-ID: <20130424191735.GI20323@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <1366683267.18069.155@driftwood> <5176FE83.3010301@gentoo.org> <20130424114852.GA99797@intma.in> <20130424154726.GD12689@port70.net> 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 1366831068 9478 80.91.229.3 (24 Apr 2013 19:17:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 19:17:48 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-3194-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Wed Apr 24 21:17:53 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 1UV5CQ-0007B1-IC for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 21:17:50 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 21558 invoked by uid 550); 24 Apr 2013 19:17:49 -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 21550 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2013 19:17:48 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130424154726.GD12689@port70.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:3190 Archived-At: On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 05:47:26PM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > * Kurt H Maier [2013-04-24 07:48:52 -0400]: > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 01:18:43PM +0200, Daniel Cegie??ka wrote: > > > > > > btw. has anyone used go with musl? > > > > > > > Go ships its own libc, which I'm fairly certain it depends on. It's > > also not suitable as a system programming language and they dropped that > > claim from their propaganda some time ago. > > > > go has its own independent world (own toolchain, syscall wrappers, > runtime, calling convention, stack management etc) but it can interact > with libc through cgo > > so the question might be if anyone has tried cgo with musl > and i guess nobody tried but it should work since cgo does > not make much assumptions about the c runtime > > go is special in this respect, most other language runtime > implementations build on top of libc so the interaction > between c and said language is less trivial > > (there are some caveats in go as well: it does not call > __libc_start_main on startup nor exit on exit so eg atexit > handlers wont get called) The idea of calling functions in libc without __libc_start_main ever having been called sounds highly misguided and potentially dangerous. In musl it might mostly work, but with glibc I don't see how it could possibly work. Rich