glfw - x11 and opengl

glfw - x11 and opengl

[Carlos Breviglieri]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4606 bytes --]

Hi there, I have a quick, basic user question:

I develop a numerical simulation software and everything builds nicely with
musl (ok, had to patch some pkgs - hdf5, mpich3, cgns, libscotch). In the
end I want to research how static/shared vs gnu/musl affects runtime and
efficiency of the numerical solver. My software also has an user interface
(basically OpenGL and custom widget toolkit) which uses glfw (www.glfw.org).

I sucessfully build glfw library using musl-gcc, both as static and shared
lib. However, the example binaries and my GUI need linking to X11 and
OpenGL (OGL) libs. The problem is that, in my system (Arch linux) and most
distros I can think of, X11 and OpenGL are dynamic libs that use gnu
libc.so (ldd shows that).

My question is: Is it possible to "tell" libX11.so and libGL.so to use musl
libc.so instead, you know at runtime? I tried the LD_PRELOAD trick and it
didn't work (ldd on executable prints lots of empty lines...). A portion of
the output of "objdump -x" is below.

I understand that musl libc might not be 100% compatible with gnu libc if
such thing is possible... Just trying to grasp the possibility. Maybe some
ld-musl-ARCH trickery? I wouldn't like to maintain a mixed build toolchain
(musl for the numerical package and gnu libc for the GUI stuff).

Perhaps the purest way to achieve what I want is to recompile X11 and OGL
with musl-gcc, but I don't think it is a viable alternative, for OGL
depends on the vendor (nvidia/ati/intel/mesa) dynamic libs. I do need to
distribute my software.

Moreover, I must manually tell musl-gcc wrapper to look for X11 and OGL
headers in /usr/include. Obviously it finds gnu libc include folder and mix
things to a failed compilation. I circunvented this problem by creating
soft links to X11 and GL headers folders into another path and include that
path during compilation. Any better/correct way to do this?

Well, I guess it wasn't a quick question after all... I appreciate any
feedback.

Regards,

Carlos


boing:     file format elf64-x86-64
boing
architecture: i386:x86-64, flags 0x00000112:
EXEC_P, HAS_SYMS, D_PAGED
start address 0x0000000000403df0

Program Header:
    PHDR off    0x0000000000000040 vaddr 0x0000000000400040 paddr
0x0000000000400040 align 2**3
         filesz 0x0000000000000150 memsz 0x0000000000000150 flags r-x
  INTERP off    0x0000000000000190 vaddr 0x0000000000400190 paddr
0x0000000000400190 align 2**0
         filesz 0x0000000000000055 memsz 0x0000000000000055 flags r--
    LOAD off    0x0000000000000000 vaddr 0x0000000000400000 paddr
0x0000000000400000 align 2**21
         filesz 0x0000000000012c54 memsz 0x0000000000012c54 flags r-x
    LOAD off    0x0000000000013000 vaddr 0x0000000000613000 paddr
0x0000000000613000 align 2**21
         filesz 0x0000000000001420 memsz 0x0000000000001e10 flags rw-
 DYNAMIC off    0x0000000000013018 vaddr 0x0000000000613018 paddr
0x0000000000613018 align 2**3
         filesz 0x0000000000000220 memsz 0x0000000000000220 flags rw-
   STACK off    0x0000000000000000 vaddr 0x0000000000000000 paddr
0x0000000000000000 align 2**4
         filesz 0x0000000000000000 memsz 0x0000000000000000 flags rw-

Dynamic Section:
  NEEDED               libm.so.6
  NEEDED               libGL.so.1
  NEEDED               libGLU.so.1
  NEEDED               libX11.so.6
  NEEDED               libXrandr.so.2
  NEEDED               libXi.so.6
  NEEDED               libXxf86vm.so.1
  NEEDED               libpthread.so.0
  NEEDED               libc.so.6
  INIT                 0x0000000000403348
  FINI                 0x000000000040ff77
  INIT_ARRAY           0x0000000000613000
  INIT_ARRAYSZ         0x0000000000000008
  FINI_ARRAY           0x0000000000613008
  FINI_ARRAYSZ         0x0000000000000008
  HASH                 0x00000000004001e8
  STRTAB               0x0000000000401778
  SYMTAB               0x00000000004006c8
  STRSZ                0x00000000000009fd
  SYMENT               0x0000000000000018
  DEBUG                0x0000000000000000
  PLTGOT               0x0000000000613238
  PLTRELSZ             0x0000000000000fd8
  PLTREL               0x0000000000000007
  JMPREL               0x0000000000402370
  VERNEED              0x00000000004022e0
  VERNEEDNUM           0x0000000000000003
  VERSYM               0x0000000000402176

Version References:
  required from libc.so.6:
    0x06969194 0x00 07 GLIBC_2.14
    0x09691974 0x00 06 GLIBC_2.3.4
    0x06969197 0x00 05 GLIBC_2.17
    0x09691a75 0x00 04 GLIBC_2.2.5
  required from libm.so.6:
    0x09691a75 0x00 03 GLIBC_2.2.5
  required from libpthread.so.0:
    0x09691a75 0x00 02 GLIBC_2.2.5

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5681 bytes --]

Re: glfw - x11 and opengl

[Rich Felker]

On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 04:16:54PM -0300, Carlos Breviglieri wrote:
> Hi there, I have a quick, basic user question:
> 
> I develop a numerical simulation software and everything builds nicely with
> musl (ok, had to patch some pkgs - hdf5, mpich3, cgns, libscotch). In the
> end I want to research how static/shared vs gnu/musl affects runtime and
> efficiency of the numerical solver. My software also has an user interface
> (basically OpenGL and custom widget toolkit) which uses glfw (www.glfw.org).
> 
> I sucessfully build glfw library using musl-gcc, both as static and shared
> lib. However, the example binaries and my GUI need linking to X11 and
> OpenGL (OGL) libs. The problem is that, in my system (Arch linux) and most
> distros I can think of, X11 and OpenGL are dynamic libs that use gnu
> libc.so (ldd shows that).
> 
> My question is: Is it possible to "tell" libX11.so and libGL.so to use musl
> libc.so instead, you know at runtime? I tried the LD_PRELOAD trick and it
> didn't work (ldd on executable prints lots of empty lines...). A portion of
> the output of "objdump -x" is below.
> 
> I understand that musl libc might not be 100% compatible with gnu libc if
> such thing is possible... Just trying to grasp the possibility. Maybe some
> ld-musl-ARCH trickery? I wouldn't like to maintain a mixed build toolchain
> (musl for the numerical package and gnu libc for the GUI stuff).

In general, you want to avoid doing this. The goal is to eventually
have enough compatibility to get most "important" binary-only modules
that people actually want to use to work, and whatever else is easy,
but the more glibc-linked libraries you try to use, the more chance
there is for things to go spectacularly wrong.

Ideally you should have a full set of musl-linked library files for
all of the ones that are open source, and only attempt to use binary
compatibility for the few that you can't recompile or get musl-native
versions for.

> Moreover, I must manually tell musl-gcc wrapper to look for X11 and OGL
> headers in /usr/include.

The whole point of the musl-gcc wrapper is to prevent gcc from looking
in /usr/include, /usr/lib, etc.

> Obviously it finds gnu libc include folder and mix
> things to a failed compilation. I circunvented this problem by creating
> soft links to X11 and GL headers folders into another path and include that
> path during compilation. Any better/correct way to do this?

Yes, building them against musl and installing them in the same
alternate prefix you installed musl in.

Alternatively, you might try using a musl-based distro like Alpine,
possibly inside your regular distro by means of lxc.

Rich

Re: glfw - x11 and opengl

[Carlos Breviglieri]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3527 bytes --]

Rich, thanks for clarifying those points.

I believe the reasonable approach now is to use musl on the numerical side
of things and leave the more system-wide apps (GUI) using the default libc.
The whole point of this exercise is to evaluate the benefits of static
linking with numerical intensive computations, possibly in parallel
(clusters). And that does not involve the graphical side of things.

I didn't know of lxc and it looks interesting to research latter.. I also
keep an eye on aboriginal linux for other architectures testings, which,
just now, announced basic musl compatibility... sweet.

Thanks,

Carlos Breviglieri
Instituto Tecnologico de Aeronautica
Brazil


On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 5:50 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 04:16:54PM -0300, Carlos Breviglieri wrote:
> > Hi there, I have a quick, basic user question:
> >
> > I develop a numerical simulation software and everything builds nicely
> with
> > musl (ok, had to patch some pkgs - hdf5, mpich3, cgns, libscotch). In the
> > end I want to research how static/shared vs gnu/musl affects runtime and
> > efficiency of the numerical solver. My software also has an user
> interface
> > (basically OpenGL and custom widget toolkit) which uses glfw (
> www.glfw.org).
> >
> > I sucessfully build glfw library using musl-gcc, both as static and
> shared
> > lib. However, the example binaries and my GUI need linking to X11 and
> > OpenGL (OGL) libs. The problem is that, in my system (Arch linux) and
> most
> > distros I can think of, X11 and OpenGL are dynamic libs that use gnu
> > libc.so (ldd shows that).
> >
> > My question is: Is it possible to "tell" libX11.so and libGL.so to use
> musl
> > libc.so instead, you know at runtime? I tried the LD_PRELOAD trick and it
> > didn't work (ldd on executable prints lots of empty lines...). A portion
> of
> > the output of "objdump -x" is below.
> >
> > I understand that musl libc might not be 100% compatible with gnu libc if
> > such thing is possible... Just trying to grasp the possibility. Maybe
> some
> > ld-musl-ARCH trickery? I wouldn't like to maintain a mixed build
> toolchain
> > (musl for the numerical package and gnu libc for the GUI stuff).
>
> In general, you want to avoid doing this. The goal is to eventually
> have enough compatibility to get most "important" binary-only modules
> that people actually want to use to work, and whatever else is easy,
> but the more glibc-linked libraries you try to use, the more chance
> there is for things to go spectacularly wrong.
>
> Ideally you should have a full set of musl-linked library files for
> all of the ones that are open source, and only attempt to use binary
> compatibility for the few that you can't recompile or get musl-native
> versions for.
>
> > Moreover, I must manually tell musl-gcc wrapper to look for X11 and OGL
> > headers in /usr/include.
>
> The whole point of the musl-gcc wrapper is to prevent gcc from looking
> in /usr/include, /usr/lib, etc.
>
> > Obviously it finds gnu libc include folder and mix
> > things to a failed compilation. I circunvented this problem by creating
> > soft links to X11 and GL headers folders into another path and include
> that
> > path during compilation. Any better/correct way to do this?
>
> Yes, building them against musl and installing them in the same
> alternate prefix you installed musl in.
>
> Alternatively, you might try using a musl-based distro like Alpine,
> possibly inside your regular distro by means of lxc.
>
> Rich
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4351 bytes --]

Re: glfw - x11 and opengl

[Laurent Bercot]

On 03/07/2014 22:22, Carlos Breviglieri wrote:
> I also keep an eye on aboriginal linux for other architectures testings,
> which, just now, announced basic musl compatibility... sweet.

  Where did you see that announcement ? I can see nothing on landley.net.
I've been waiting for the Aboriginal native musl toolchains for a while
and chafing at the bit. It would be sweet if they were finally ready.
(Rob, can you confirm/deny ?)

-- 
  Laurent

Re: glfw - x11 and opengl

[Josiah Worcester]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 697 bytes --]

On Jul 3, 2014 7:14 PM, "Laurent Bercot" <ska-dietlibc@skarnet.org> wrote:
>
> On 03/07/2014 22:22, Carlos Breviglieri wrote:
>>
>> I also keep an eye on aboriginal linux for other architectures testings,
>> which, just now, announced basic musl compatibility... sweet.
>
>
>  Where did you see that announcement ? I can see nothing on landley.net.
> I've been waiting for the Aboriginal native musl toolchains for a while
> and chafing at the bit. It would be sweet if they were finally ready.
> (Rob, can you confirm/deny ?)
>
> --
>  Laurent
>
The hg repo definitely has initial musl work as of 23 hours ago. It looks
as though it works, but might be fragile and have things not working right.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 952 bytes --]

Re: glfw - x11 and opengl

[Samuel Holland]

On Fri, 2014-07-04 at 01:14 +0100, Laurent Bercot wrote:
> On 03/07/2014 22:22, Carlos Breviglieri wrote:
> > I also keep an eye on aboriginal linux for other architectures testings,
> > which, just now, announced basic musl compatibility... sweet.
> 
>   Where did you see that announcement ? I can see nothing on landley.net.
> I've been waiting for the Aboriginal native musl toolchains for a while
> and chafing at the bit. It would be sweet if they were finally ready.
> (Rob, can you confirm/deny ?)
> 

http://lists.landley.net/pipermail/aboriginal-landley.net/2014-July/001399.html

-- 
Regards,
Samuel Holland <samuel@sholland.net>

Re: glfw - x11 and opengl

[Rich Felker]

On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 09:40:10PM -0500, Samuel Holland wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-07-04 at 01:14 +0100, Laurent Bercot wrote:
> > On 03/07/2014 22:22, Carlos Breviglieri wrote:
> > > I also keep an eye on aboriginal linux for other architectures testings,
> > > which, just now, announced basic musl compatibility... sweet.
> > 
> >   Where did you see that announcement ? I can see nothing on landley.net.
> > I've been waiting for the Aboriginal native musl toolchains for a while
> > and chafing at the bit. It would be sweet if they were finally ready.
> > (Rob, can you confirm/deny ?)
> > 
> 
> http://lists.landley.net/pipermail/aboriginal-landley.net/2014-July/001399.html

Has anyone had a chance to look at this yet? It would be nice if
someone with experience with distros/building could help check for
common breakage/pitfalls. I know Aboriginal is using a much older
toolchain than most musl users, so that might also have some new
issues that others haven't encountered. I suspect there might still be
issues with libgcc.a symbol visibility that would result in broken
binaries when dynamic linking against musl; this should be easy to
check.

BTW regarding the libgcc.a issue, since it seems to be common in
bootstrapping, it might be worth working around it in the musl build
process by using -Wl,--exclude-libs,libgcc.a if this option is
supported by the linker.

Anyway back to the point, it's great to see musl making it into
Aboriginal!

Rich

Re: Aboriginal musl support

[Isaac Dunham]

On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 11:25:46PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 09:40:10PM -0500, Samuel Holland wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-07-04 at 01:14 +0100, Laurent Bercot wrote:
> > > On 03/07/2014 22:22, Carlos Breviglieri wrote:
> > > > I also keep an eye on aboriginal linux for other architectures testings,
> > > > which, just now, announced basic musl compatibility... sweet.
> > > 
> > >   Where did you see that announcement ? I can see nothing on landley.net.
> > > I've been waiting for the Aboriginal native musl toolchains for a while
> > > and chafing at the bit. It would be sweet if they were finally ready.
> > > (Rob, can you confirm/deny ?)
> > > 
> > 
> > http://lists.landley.net/pipermail/aboriginal-landley.net/2014-July/001399.html
> 
> Has anyone had a chance to look at this yet? It would be nice if
> someone with experience with distros/building could help check for
> common breakage/pitfalls. I know Aboriginal is using a much older
> toolchain than most musl users, so that might also have some new

Similar version (4.2.1) to bootstrap-linux (4.2.2?), also the oldest
supported by musl-cross; I used GCC 3.4 and 4.2.1 with some patches
for the latter from both musl-cross and Aboriginal.

> issues that others haven't encountered. I suspect there might still be
> issues with libgcc.a symbol visibility that would result in broken
> binaries when dynamic linking against musl; this should be easy to
> check.

See the threads of Jan 11/12.
(Rob could not duplicate.)

As far as patches go, he has a number; see
http://landley.net/hg/aboriginal/file/tip/sources/patches
(gcc-core-* is the relevant part).

> BTW regarding the libgcc.a issue, since it seems to be common in
> bootstrapping, it might be worth working around it in the musl build
> process by using -Wl,--exclude-libs,libgcc.a if this option is
> supported by the linker.
> 
> Anyway back to the point, it's great to see musl making it into
> Aboriginal!

Indeed.

> Rich

Thanks,
Isaac Dunham

Re: Aboriginal musl support

[Rich Felker]

On Sat, Jul 05, 2014 at 11:18:29PM -0700, Isaac Dunham wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 11:25:46PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 09:40:10PM -0500, Samuel Holland wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2014-07-04 at 01:14 +0100, Laurent Bercot wrote:
> > > > On 03/07/2014 22:22, Carlos Breviglieri wrote:
> > > > > I also keep an eye on aboriginal linux for other architectures testings,
> > > > > which, just now, announced basic musl compatibility... sweet.
> > > > 
> > > >   Where did you see that announcement ? I can see nothing on landley.net.
> > > > I've been waiting for the Aboriginal native musl toolchains for a while
> > > > and chafing at the bit. It would be sweet if they were finally ready.
> > > > (Rob, can you confirm/deny ?)
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > http://lists.landley.net/pipermail/aboriginal-landley.net/2014-July/001399.html
> > 
> > Has anyone had a chance to look at this yet? It would be nice if
> > someone with experience with distros/building could help check for
> > common breakage/pitfalls. I know Aboriginal is using a much older
> > toolchain than most musl users, so that might also have some new
> 
> Similar version (4.2.1) to bootstrap-linux (4.2.2?), also the oldest
> supported by musl-cross; I used GCC 3.4 and 4.2.1 with some patches
> for the latter from both musl-cross and Aboriginal.

OK good to know.

> > issues that others haven't encountered. I suspect there might still be
> > issues with libgcc.a symbol visibility that would result in broken
> > binaries when dynamic linking against musl; this should be easy to
> > check.
> 
> See the threads of Jan 11/12.
> (Rob could not duplicate.)

Yes, that's why I suspect the bug may still be present: he was only
concerned with finding a test case showing it breaking something and
was not convinced merely by the presence of the visible symbols that
break the ABI.

This is part of why I think it may be beneficial to work around broken
libgcc.a on musl's side: the breakage is subtle when it happens and
it's hard to convince users that there really is a bug.

Rich

Re: Aboriginal musl support

[Carlos Breviglieri]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2986 bytes --]

Hey, sorry for the late reply... I saw the announcement at the aboriginal
mailing list and confused it with musl's. The link is already posted, but,
for reference here it goes. You can check out the commits for details at
http://landley.net/hg/aboriginal/rss-log and http://landley.net/notes.html

""""""
Subject: [Aboriginal] basic musl support is in.

To enable it for a given target, comment out the UCLIBC_CONFIG stanza in
the sources/targets/$ARCH file.

All I can really say at the moment is that it compiles for i686. (That's
the ccwrap rewrite, basic script tweaks, and a patch to gcc to not use a
nonstandard type name.)

Sorry that took so long. It was a lot of debugging. (And now to test
build more stuff...)

Rob
""""""

Regards,

Carlos


On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 2:46 AM, Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 05, 2014 at 11:18:29PM -0700, Isaac Dunham wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 11:25:46PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 09:40:10PM -0500, Samuel Holland wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2014-07-04 at 01:14 +0100, Laurent Bercot wrote:
> > > > > On 03/07/2014 22:22, Carlos Breviglieri wrote:
> > > > > > I also keep an eye on aboriginal linux for other architectures
> testings,
> > > > > > which, just now, announced basic musl compatibility... sweet.
> > > > >
> > > > >   Where did you see that announcement ? I can see nothing on
> landley.net.
> > > > > I've been waiting for the Aboriginal native musl toolchains for a
> while
> > > > > and chafing at the bit. It would be sweet if they were finally
> ready.
> > > > > (Rob, can you confirm/deny ?)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> http://lists.landley.net/pipermail/aboriginal-landley.net/2014-July/001399.html
> > >
> > > Has anyone had a chance to look at this yet? It would be nice if
> > > someone with experience with distros/building could help check for
> > > common breakage/pitfalls. I know Aboriginal is using a much older
> > > toolchain than most musl users, so that might also have some new
> >
> > Similar version (4.2.1) to bootstrap-linux (4.2.2?), also the oldest
> > supported by musl-cross; I used GCC 3.4 and 4.2.1 with some patches
> > for the latter from both musl-cross and Aboriginal.
>
> OK good to know.
>
> > > issues that others haven't encountered. I suspect there might still be
> > > issues with libgcc.a symbol visibility that would result in broken
> > > binaries when dynamic linking against musl; this should be easy to
> > > check.
> >
> > See the threads of Jan 11/12.
> > (Rob could not duplicate.)
>
> Yes, that's why I suspect the bug may still be present: he was only
> concerned with finding a test case showing it breaking something and
> was not convinced merely by the presence of the visible symbols that
> break the ABI.
>
> This is part of why I think it may be beneficial to work around broken
> libgcc.a on musl's side: the breakage is subtle when it happens and
> it's hard to convince users that there really is a bug.
>
> Rich
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4181 bytes --]

Re: glfw - x11 and opengl

[Rob Landley]

On 07/03/14 22:25, Rich Felker wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 09:40:10PM -0500, Samuel Holland wrote:
>> On Fri, 2014-07-04 at 01:14 +0100, Laurent Bercot wrote:
>>> On 03/07/2014 22:22, Carlos Breviglieri wrote:
>>>> I also keep an eye on aboriginal linux for other architectures testings,
>>>> which, just now, announced basic musl compatibility... sweet.
>>>
>>>   Where did you see that announcement ? I can see nothing on landley.net.
>>> I've been waiting for the Aboriginal native musl toolchains for a while
>>> and chafing at the bit. It would be sweet if they were finally ready.
>>> (Rob, can you confirm/deny ?)
>>>
>>
>> http://lists.landley.net/pipermail/aboriginal-landley.net/2014-July/001399.html
> 
> Has anyone had a chance to look at this yet? It would be nice if
> someone with experience with distros/building could help check for
> common breakage/pitfalls. I know Aboriginal is using a much older
> toolchain than most musl users, so that might also have some new
> issues that others haven't encountered. I suspect there might still be
> issues with libgcc.a symbol visibility that would result in broken
> binaries when dynamic linking against musl; this should be easy to
> check.

Dynamic linking is indeed broken. Haven't tracked down why yet.
(hello-dynamic works on i686, segfaults on mips.)

Static building seems to work reasonably well though. No sparc support,
but I only ever got 32 bits working there anyway. (Less sad about the
lack of m68k support since there _still_ wasn't a working qemu for that
last I checked.)

> BTW regarding the libgcc.a issue, since it seems to be common in
> bootstrapping, it might be worth working around it in the musl build
> process by using -Wl,--exclude-libs,libgcc.a if this option is
> supported by the linker.

Which libgcc.a issue? I hit a couple different ones, but I think they're
fixed now?

> Anyway back to the point, it's great to see musl making it into
> Aboriginal!

Thanks. Sorry it took so long but it's _fiddly_ getting a new toolchain
to work. And I'm sure something else is still lurking somewhere...

> Rich

Rob

Re: glfw - x11 and opengl

[Rich Felker]

On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 07:38:26PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 07/03/14 22:25, Rich Felker wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 09:40:10PM -0500, Samuel Holland wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2014-07-04 at 01:14 +0100, Laurent Bercot wrote:
> >>> On 03/07/2014 22:22, Carlos Breviglieri wrote:
> >>>> I also keep an eye on aboriginal linux for other architectures testings,
> >>>> which, just now, announced basic musl compatibility... sweet.
> >>>
> >>>   Where did you see that announcement ? I can see nothing on landley.net.
> >>> I've been waiting for the Aboriginal native musl toolchains for a while
> >>> and chafing at the bit. It would be sweet if they were finally ready.
> >>> (Rob, can you confirm/deny ?)
> >>>
> >>
> >> http://lists.landley.net/pipermail/aboriginal-landley.net/2014-July/001399.html
> > 
> > Has anyone had a chance to look at this yet? It would be nice if
> > someone with experience with distros/building could help check for
> > common breakage/pitfalls. I know Aboriginal is using a much older
> > toolchain than most musl users, so that might also have some new
> > issues that others haven't encountered. I suspect there might still be
> > issues with libgcc.a symbol visibility that would result in broken
> > binaries when dynamic linking against musl; this should be easy to
> > check.
> 
> Dynamic linking is indeed broken. Haven't tracked down why yet.
> (hello-dynamic works on i686, segfaults on mips.)

Is it only mips that's segfaulting, or other archs too? I'm guessing
it's either an issue with your toolchain, or perhaps the mips
relocation regression in 1.1.3 that's fixed in master -- it was
announced here on the list.

> > BTW regarding the libgcc.a issue, since it seems to be common in
> > bootstrapping, it might be worth working around it in the musl build
> > process by using -Wl,--exclude-libs,libgcc.a if this option is
> > supported by the linker.
> 
> Which libgcc.a issue? I hit a couple different ones, but I think they're
> fixed now?

Any libgcc-namespace symbols (like __udivdi3) getting exported from
musl libc.so. This command should show some of them if they're
present:

nm -D lib/libc.so | grep __.*div

Rich