On 22/04/15 16:36, Kyrylo Tkachov wrote: > On 22/04/15 16:26, Ilya Verbin wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 15:34:51 +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote: >>> On 22/04/15 14:16, Jeff Law wrote: >>>> On 04/20/2015 12:52 PM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: >>>>> Add musl libc support to gcc and the command line option -mmusl > following other >>>>> libc support code. >>>>> >>>>> Note that -m<libc> cannot be entirely correct: there are build time > decisions >>>>> based on the default libc. >>>>> >>>>> gcc/Changelog: >>>>> >>>>> 2015-04-16 Gregor Richards <gregor.richa...@uwaterloo.ca> >>>>> >>>>> * config.gcc (LIBC_MUSL): New tm_defines macro. >>>>> * config/linux.h (OPTION_MUSL): Define. >>>>> (INCLUDE_DEFAULTS_MUSL_GPP, INCLUDE_DEFAULTS_MUSL_LOCAL,) >>>>> (INCLUDE_DEFAULTS_MUSL_PREFIX, INCLUDE_DEFAULTS_MUSL_CROSS,) >>>>> (INCLUDE_DEFAULTS_MUSL_TOOL, INCLUDE_DEFAULTS_MUSL_NATIVE): Define. >>>>> >>>>> * config/linux.opt (mmusl): New option. >>>>> * gcc/configure.ac (gcc_cv_libc_provides_ssp): Add *-*-musl*. >>>>> (gcc_cv_target_dl_iterate_phdr): Add *-linux-musl*. >>>>> >>>>> * gcc/configure: Regenerate. >>>> OK for the trunk. Please install. >>> I've committed this on Szabolcs' behalf with r222326 >>> with slightly adjusted ChangeLog paths: >>> >>> 2015-04-22 Gregor Richards <gregor.richa...@uwaterloo.ca> >>> >>> * config.gcc (LIBC_MUSL): New tm_defines macro. >>> * config/linux.h (OPTION_MUSL): Define. >>> (INCLUDE_DEFAULTS_MUSL_GPP, INCLUDE_DEFAULTS_MUSL_LOCAL,) >>> (INCLUDE_DEFAULTS_MUSL_PREFIX, INCLUDE_DEFAULTS_MUSL_CROSS,) >>> (INCLUDE_DEFAULTS_MUSL_TOOL, INCLUDE_DEFAULTS_MUSL_NATIVE): Define. >>> >>> * config/linux.opt (mmusl): New option. >>> * configure.ac (gcc_cv_libc_provides_ssp): Add *-*-musl*. >>> (gcc_cv_target_dl_iterate_phdr): Add *-linux-musl*. >>> >>> * configure: Regenerate. >> This caused: >> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2015-04/msg00262.html > > Sorry about that. I've reverted the patch. > Szabolcs, we should wait until the target-specific parts are > approved and install it all together? Or did you want to #ifdef > some parts out to make this patch more robust towards targets that > don't support musl? >
yes, i didn't realize that this depends on the target specific parts i will prepare an updated patch that works if the target has no musl dynamic linker name defined sorry
