From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/14243 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Reinoud Koornstra Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: where to find musl-gcc wrapper script Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 14:19:06 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20190617233023.GK1506@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20190618024755.GM1506@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20190618174926.GN1506@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20190618184346.GO1506@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="48214"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" Cc: musl@lists.openwall.com To: Rich Felker Original-X-From: musl-return-14259-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Tue Jun 18 23:19:36 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by blaine.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hdLVt-000CQI-90 for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 23:19:33 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 22014 invoked by uid 550); 18 Jun 2019 21:19:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Original-Received: (qmail 21993 invoked from network); 18 Jun 2019 21:19:29 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=13vyKvD9tX7HR3S8YKzHwBhphi+zfBFCT4iRVsGp120=; b=RzllCmznvGNDaACZapQrOJS3zeviDXc7jz6QcCZj9RmtNENlrkTOnWZs6fNGCCsKmC QlwEJuY+ucCUJa3ohi8RZAQJQLKMv2BGWrqvCKJM55BtLnY+Gp72Jusjpvgc2Z4gS1yM AUcFAnQeJ97hZcLx7k4qN2XcNZj99xXbDR3C5+mREdwgPJIGgYW2g8zM9hpAEu2at6Cq atKrFo56zDWauiTwPRJKDEkw3pY9NTJL2H2oiVrqBh1yh9j36J8gScaCisxf6GxvHU9x 9sCJRIp+w8uOKmpzDwMMsyyz0kQKStbbALmdzoG9IUHdJPIkjmCPzzGFLl+y94FBMnCn xcrg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=13vyKvD9tX7HR3S8YKzHwBhphi+zfBFCT4iRVsGp120=; b=tEKebBoRsSP8KuiAIx20TwRhFK2L8E2vxKqhJ5eO3VDZjz/L0SdRDnnweevvoqXRfp l/r4aYf7VcZekqBNRVKCPHX/WsGsK/2SMOTUfjEb/MWx8SRxD/O9jdvHhAIWdWYNdwM1 ro/RvyTlj1w88/4K7UFSIUjqCm2ve0PtjfEUZHgutAb7RAMKKpQa39L5/+wYVyvXr3Yv N1zYSNH9jliNhsg689NqGFggskPyvZpUzSR37ZAEto0Zv8vuhZN04vgnXoIxpH8Niekm YB4jc91FEEPOUcm5zGoe+2LkdX3rASOhFXBLsxmSfE5uM31Ob/uC8JuCXCQGcAyOBVYw saXQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXGMznSrh8gbooFLWjVI0w6TNNvAwHOCe72DAPbl++XbtjzDJdy Ye3xJTd4nNXJmyKHB4qoeQqX5LauSWLjRmHAPYQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyfIyIWln8BeGO5HZ1mi+T1GKu+vk5flUZwtaXqGoH3JlxkfqWsUphQrpENcL+/dqkMjiy3RhbFkeGMk9QylK0= X-Received: by 2002:aca:ad0f:: with SMTP id w15mr708115oie.58.1560892757618; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 14:19:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20190618184346.GO1506@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:14243 Archived-At: I noticed that the -static gives me some weird stuff. If I use glibc to compile gdb and then rerun the compile command with static I do get to see it's a statically linked binary. It'll end up with warnings, but ... gdb compiles fine with musl as well. So after compiling i see: ELF 32-bit executable, ARM, EABI5 version 1 (SYSV). dynamically linked, interpreter /lib/ld-musl-armhf.so.1 When I add -static to the arm-linux-musleabihf-g++ command it compiles seemingly fine as well. However when i run file again over this I see: ELF 32-bit executable, ARM, EABI5 version 1 (SYSV). dynamically linked, interpreter, /usr/lib/ld.so.1 .... So adding -static didn't seem to have the desired effect, it also all over sudden showed a different interpreter. Any ideas? Thanks, Reinoud. On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 11:43 AM Rich Felker wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 11:27:51AM -0700, Reinoud Koornstra wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:49 AM Rich Felker wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 08:28:12PM -0700, Reinoud Koornstra wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019, 7:47 PM Rich Felker wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 07:30:00PM -0700, Reinoud Koornstra wrote: > > > > > > Ok the wrapper is included in the musl library itself in the obj > > > > > directory. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, or installed in $prefix/bin if you install. If you don't install > > > > > it won't be able to find its spec file. > > > > > > > > > > > c++ isn't supported yet? > > > > > > > > > > Right. Nobody I'm aware of understands the details of this, but > > > > > apparently either GCC's actual C++ headers or its "precompiled header" > > > > > versions of them pull in a bunch of stuff from glibc, and then it > > > > > breaks when you try to reuse them with musl. It's probably not that > > > > > hard to figure out the root cause and maybe even make it work, but > > > > > nobody has done it and interest is low because it's still a big hack > > > > > compared to just building a proper cross toolchain. > > > > > > > > > > > Currently I configure with CC=musl-gcc > > > > > > CFLAGS="-I/home/me/MUSL/include" LDFLAGS="-L/home/me/lib" ./configure > > > > > > the final g++ comand also add -lrt, need more changes for this to work? > > > > > > > > > > If you do that you're compiling against musl's headers but then > > > > > linking against glibc, which is going to make a huge broken mess. > > > > > > > > Yes, I noticed, so how can I force it to link against musl as well? > > > > > > You can't, because things already went wrong as soon as you compiled > > > against glibc's C++ headers using the glibc-based host g++. > > > > > > > > If you need C++, you really should just build a cross toolchain with > > > > > musl-cross-make. It's as simple as clining the mcm repo and running > > > > > "make TARGET=x86_64-linux-musl OUTPUT=/some/dir install" -- it will > > > > > download, check hashes on, and patch all the components you need and > > > > > give you a clean self-contained cross toolchain in the OUTPUT dir. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also done that, in that case should I just use the compiled gcc as cc? > > > > > > You can pass the resulting x86_64-linux-musl-gcc and > > > x86_64-linux-musl-g++ as CC and CXX, but for software using the > > > standard tuple prefix conventions, you'd tell it you're cross > > > compiling for x86_64-linux-musl (e.g. by passing > > > --host=x86_64-linux-musl to configure) and it would automatically pick > > > them up as long as they're in your PATH (which you probably need to > > > add them to, e.g. PATH=$PATH:/path/to/mcm/output/bin). This is better > > > if the software has reason to need to know it's being cross compiled, > > > or if it uses other utilities like ar, ranlib, direct use of ld, etc. > > > in the build process, since it will pick up the right ones from the > > > cross toolchain. > > > > Ok, this seemed to have worked nicely. Question, it does add -lrt in > > the end, do I need this in musl or is it build in libc? > > Also, is there a way to verify everything linked nicely by the musl-ld? > > You can include -lrt or omit it; it doesn't matter. musl provides > librt purely as an empty static library file to allow link commands > that include it (POSIX specifies that it must be accepted), so it > makes no difference to the output. All functionality is in libc.a/.so. > > Rich