From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/5837 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: u-igbb@aetey.se Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: compiling musl on x86_64 linux with pcc Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 09:10:55 +0200 Message-ID: <20140814071055.GN5170@example.net> References: <20140813091843.GD5170@example.net> <20140813123832.GK12888@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20140813125607.GK5170@example.net> <20140813142332.GN12888@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 1408000298 11356 80.91.229.3 (14 Aug 2014 07:11:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 07:11:38 +0000 (UTC) Cc: musl@lists.openwall.com To: Rich Felker Original-X-From: musl-return-5843-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Aug 14 09:11:31 2014 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 1XHpC7-0003zZ-8A for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 09:11:31 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 17662 invoked by uid 550); 14 Aug 2014 07:11:22 -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 17639 invoked from network); 14 Aug 2014 07:11:18 -0000 X-T2-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50 Received-SPF: none receiver=mailfe06.swip.net; client-ip=195.154.243.53; envelope-from=u-igbb@aetey.se Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140813142332.GN12888@brightrain.aerifal.cx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:5837 Archived-At: On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:23:32AM -0400, Rich Felker wrote: > > I'd like to also have a tcc-based one but musl seems to be too hard > > a target for tcc yet :( sigh. > > I think tcc has a long ways to go... But pcc was working in the past > (at least on 32-bit) and should work. AFAICT tcc can not even _use_ musl (i.e. build programs to be linked to musl) as musl relies on __builtin_va_list. That's a pity. Wonder whether it would cost too much to make __builtin_va_list non-mandatory? Rune