Re: for the wiki: a __MUSL__ alternative

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

On 05/02/2014 06:44 AM, Oliver Schneider wrote:
> Hey Rich,
>
> On 2014-05-01 12:51, Rich Felker wrote:
>> The whole point of the wiki answer is that doing this is wrong. Adding
>> a "here's a way to do it anyway" rather defeats the purpose and is
>> just going to get us more trouble in the long term. In any case, this
>> only works when dynamic linking is available, and it requires the
>> ability to run programs for the target which breaks cross compiling
>> and therefore violates one of the biggest rules for built scripts.
> you're right and I admire how steadfast you are in your resolve.
>
> Initially I desired to have this myself so that I could give attribution
> within the program depending on whether it was built with musl-libc or
> another libc. Right now I have simple used a define on the command line
> to tell whether it's a build with musl-libc or not.
>
> Also, I don't think the proposed solution is very elegant. In this case
> it'd be better to pass parameters using the specs file, no?
>
> // Oliver
>
>
As far as elegance goes, you're right (I wasn't aiming at too much 
elegance with that kind of a temporary solution).  But if I understand 
you correctly(*), two reasons not to use the .specs file are: 1) there 
are native musl compilers that do not use the wrapper's .specs file; and 
2) by turning __MUSL__ into a built-in macro of such native compilers, 
and likewise by defining __MUSL__ in the .specs file, you'll be making 
the macro available to everybody without requiring extra effort, which I 
believe is what we'd like to avoid.

(*) I read 'specs' as a reference to musl-gcc.specs

-zg (regretfully for bringing this up in the first place...)