>> Would it make sense to drop the "Glibc" here? Having "Glibc" means that >> we end up with glibc specifics in files that are not glibc specific (e.g. >> a-exetim__posix.adb or s-osinte__linux.ads). Are these particular macros >> glibc specific? We need these to build with other libc (e.g. musl). > > As an aside: I won't promise to work on this just yet, but there's some fixes > needed > to get GNAT building on musl. If these are welcomed, I'll move it a bit > higher up on my list.
Unless the changes are very intrusive, I don't expect any pushback :) As I just remembered about some Alpine local patch to get gnat to build, I tried to find it again, and found a change related to 64 bits time: https://gitlab.kveer.fr/upstream/alpine-aports/-/blob/3.21-stable/main/gcc/0032-libgnat-time_t-is-always-64-bit-on-musl-libc.patch So it's possible this change makes the musl build a bit easier. But there are some more: https://gitlab.kveer.fr/upstream/alpine-aports/-/blob/3.21-stable/main/gcc/0025-ada-libgnarl-compatibility-for-musl.patch I guess you are referring to similar changes? Thanks, Marc
