Re: static musl-based gdb and -fPIC

["writeonce@midipix.org" <writeonce@midipix.org>]

On 04/20/2014 01:03 PM, writeonce@midipix.org wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> While building a statically linked musl-based gdb, ld asked that 
> libc.a be recompiled with -fPIC.  After recompiling musl with the 
> above flag, gdb built successfully.  The reason I wanted to have a 
> static gdb (other than the trivial ones) was to be able to debug a 
> musl-based python.  The distribution's gdb has a dynamic dependency on 
> a glibc-based libpython, and the two friends don't play well together.
>
> Now that the static gdb is up and running, my questions are:
>
> 1) is there any reason not to "always" compile musl with -fPIC, at 
> least on x86_64?
>
> 2) is there any reason to revert to the old build of libc.so? Although 
> I rebuilt musl because of libc.a, it turns out that the -fPIC flag 
> also helped libc.so become much smaller: 699299 bytes, instead of 
> 2767910 bytes (musl v1.0.0, binutils v2.24).  Any other factors to 
> consider?

Pardon!  Of the two files above, only the larger one had debug 
information.   With -fPIC and debug information, the current size of 
libc.so is 2379780 bytes.

>
> Thanks for looking at this,
> zg
>
>
>