* OpenEmbedded and musl-libc
@ 2014-03-21 12:34 Paul Barker
2014-03-21 13:10 ` Burton, Ross
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Paul Barker @ 2014-03-21 12:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yocto discussion list, openembedded-core
Hi all,
musl-libc hit version 1.0.0 yesterday and is starting to look good to
me. It's basically a really small but very functional libc that would
suit embedded environments very well as an alternative to
eglibc/uclibc. I'm personally very interested in using it in my
projects and I also think it could fit in well with the aims of
poky-tiny.
http://www.etalabs.net/compare_libcs.html gives some pretty useful info.
I'm basically emailing to see if anyone else is interested in this or
if anyone has looked at using it before in OpenEmbedded as a google
for previous discussions didn't turn anything up.
I'm currently very busy between various projects so I don't have time
to hack together a musl-libc recipe myself but I should have time to
help test it.
Thanks,
--
Paul Barker
Email: paul@paulbarker.me.uk
http://www.paulbarker.me.uk
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* Re: [OE-core] OpenEmbedded and musl-libc 2014-03-21 12:34 OpenEmbedded and musl-libc Paul Barker @ 2014-03-21 13:10 ` Burton, Ross 2014-03-21 13:42 ` Kevyn-Alexandre Paré 2014-03-21 18:22 ` Khem Raj 2 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Burton, Ross @ 2014-03-21 13:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Barker; +Cc: Yocto discussion list, openembedded-core On 21 March 2014 12:34, Paul Barker <paul@paulbarker.me.uk> wrote: > I'm currently very busy between various projects so I don't have time > to hack together a musl-libc recipe myself but I should have time to > help test it. I saw that yesterday too and thought it could be interesting for Yocto. I'm curious as to why it's better than uclibc though (genuinely curious, I know little about uclibc beyond "it's smaller"). Ross ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: OpenEmbedded and musl-libc @ 2014-03-21 13:10 ` Burton, Ross 0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Burton, Ross @ 2014-03-21 13:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Barker; +Cc: Yocto discussion list, openembedded-core On 21 March 2014 12:34, Paul Barker <paul@paulbarker.me.uk> wrote: > I'm currently very busy between various projects so I don't have time > to hack together a musl-libc recipe myself but I should have time to > help test it. I saw that yesterday too and thought it could be interesting for Yocto. I'm curious as to why it's better than uclibc though (genuinely curious, I know little about uclibc beyond "it's smaller"). Ross ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [OE-core] OpenEmbedded and musl-libc 2014-03-21 13:10 ` Burton, Ross @ 2014-03-21 13:26 ` Seth Bollinger -1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Seth Bollinger @ 2014-03-21 13:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Burton, Ross; +Cc: Yocto discussion list, openembedded-core [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 340 bytes --] > > > I saw that yesterday too and thought it could be interesting for > Yocto. I'm curious as to why it's better than uclibc though > (genuinely curious, I know little about uclibc beyond "it's smaller"). > It been a while since I've reviewed uclibc, but doesn't it break a lot of software with its vfork only paradigm? Seth [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 620 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [yocto] OpenEmbedded and musl-libc @ 2014-03-21 13:26 ` Seth Bollinger 0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Seth Bollinger @ 2014-03-21 13:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Burton, Ross; +Cc: Yocto discussion list, openembedded-core [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 340 bytes --] > > > I saw that yesterday too and thought it could be interesting for > Yocto. I'm curious as to why it's better than uclibc though > (genuinely curious, I know little about uclibc beyond "it's smaller"). > It been a while since I've reviewed uclibc, but doesn't it break a lot of software with its vfork only paradigm? Seth [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 620 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [OE-core] OpenEmbedded and musl-libc 2014-03-21 13:26 ` [yocto] " Seth Bollinger (?) @ 2014-03-26 16:44 ` Thomas Petazzoni -1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Thomas Petazzoni @ 2014-03-26 16:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Seth Bollinger; +Cc: Yocto discussion list, openembedded-core Dear Seth Bollinger, On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 08:26:08 -0500, Seth Bollinger wrote: > > I saw that yesterday too and thought it could be interesting for > > Yocto. I'm curious as to why it's better than uclibc though > > (genuinely curious, I know little about uclibc beyond "it's smaller"). > > It been a while since I've reviewed uclibc, but doesn't it break a lot of > software with its vfork only paradigm? I'm not sure where you have seen that uClibc has vfork() only paradigm, but it's not correct. uClibc has a proper fork() implementation on all MMU-equipped CPU architectures that uClibc support. Only the non-MMU architectures are limited to vfork(). The originality of uClibc here is probably precisely the fact that it supports non-MMU architectures, which many other C libraries do not. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [OE-core] OpenEmbedded and musl-libc 2014-03-21 13:10 ` Burton, Ross @ 2014-03-21 14:37 ` Paul Barker -1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Paul Barker @ 2014-03-21 14:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Burton, Ross; +Cc: Yocto discussion list, openembedded-core On 21 March 2014 13:10, Burton, Ross <ross.burton@intel.com> wrote: > On 21 March 2014 12:34, Paul Barker <paul@paulbarker.me.uk> wrote: >> I'm currently very busy between various projects so I don't have time >> to hack together a musl-libc recipe myself but I should have time to >> help test it. > > I saw that yesterday too and thought it could be interesting for > Yocto. I'm curious as to why it's better than uclibc though > (genuinely curious, I know little about uclibc beyond "it's smaller"). > > Ross Looking at what they say: Better standards compliance, different license, better for static linking, full UTF-8 support, strong fail-safe guarantees. I am taking that at face value as I haven't really done my own comparison of glibc/uclibc/musl. I've been following the news of musl development for a while though and I like the direction they're heading in. Thanks, -- Paul Barker Email: paul@paulbarker.me.uk http://www.paulbarker.me.uk ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: OpenEmbedded and musl-libc @ 2014-03-21 14:37 ` Paul Barker 0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Paul Barker @ 2014-03-21 14:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Burton, Ross; +Cc: Yocto discussion list, openembedded-core On 21 March 2014 13:10, Burton, Ross <ross.burton@intel.com> wrote: > On 21 March 2014 12:34, Paul Barker <paul@paulbarker.me.uk> wrote: >> I'm currently very busy between various projects so I don't have time >> to hack together a musl-libc recipe myself but I should have time to >> help test it. > > I saw that yesterday too and thought it could be interesting for > Yocto. I'm curious as to why it's better than uclibc though > (genuinely curious, I know little about uclibc beyond "it's smaller"). > > Ross Looking at what they say: Better standards compliance, different license, better for static linking, full UTF-8 support, strong fail-safe guarantees. I am taking that at face value as I haven't really done my own comparison of glibc/uclibc/musl. I've been following the news of musl development for a while though and I like the direction they're heading in. Thanks, -- Paul Barker Email: paul@paulbarker.me.uk http://www.paulbarker.me.uk ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [OE-core] OpenEmbedded and musl-libc 2014-03-21 14:37 ` Paul Barker (?) @ 2014-03-26 16:46 ` Thomas Petazzoni -1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Thomas Petazzoni @ 2014-03-26 16:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Barker; +Cc: Yocto discussion list, openembedded-core Dear Paul Barker, On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 14:37:16 +0000, Paul Barker wrote: > On 21 March 2014 13:10, Burton, Ross <ross.burton@intel.com> wrote: > > On 21 March 2014 12:34, Paul Barker <paul@paulbarker.me.uk> wrote: > >> I'm currently very busy between various projects so I don't have time > >> to hack together a musl-libc recipe myself but I should have time to > >> help test it. > > > > I saw that yesterday too and thought it could be interesting for > > Yocto. I'm curious as to why it's better than uclibc though > > (genuinely curious, I know little about uclibc beyond "it's smaller"). > > > > Ross > > Looking at what they say: Better standards compliance, different > license, better for static linking, full UTF-8 support, strong > fail-safe guarantees. I would also add that musl is less configurable than uClibc. This might be seen as a drawback (you have less possibilities of fine-tuning the configuration) but also has a lot of advantages (it's easier for the maintainers to test the code base, it's easier to know what feature set musl provides, while with uClibc, each configuration provides a different feature set, which can be a nightmare for build systems). Another important thing is that the musl community is much more active than the uClibc one. uClibc hasn't seen a stable release since a looong time, and despite several calls on the mailing list since several months to do a release, nothing is happening. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: OpenEmbedded and musl-libc 2014-03-21 12:34 OpenEmbedded and musl-libc Paul Barker 2014-03-21 13:10 ` Burton, Ross @ 2014-03-21 13:42 ` Kevyn-Alexandre Paré 2014-03-21 16:16 ` Kevyn-Alexandre Paré 2014-03-21 18:22 ` Khem Raj 2 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Kevyn-Alexandre Paré @ 2014-03-21 13:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Barker; +Cc: Yocto discussion list, openembedded-core I will be interested for sure! I have added it to bugzilla as an enhancement. They were suggesting new feature for 1.7 in the last meeting and suggesting to add them in bugzilla as new feature. Please review if I filed the bug properly https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6024 -KA On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Paul Barker <paul@paulbarker.me.uk> wrote: > Hi all, > > musl-libc hit version 1.0.0 yesterday and is starting to look good to > me. It's basically a really small but very functional libc that would > suit embedded environments very well as an alternative to > eglibc/uclibc. I'm personally very interested in using it in my > projects and I also think it could fit in well with the aims of > poky-tiny. > > http://www.etalabs.net/compare_libcs.html gives some pretty useful info. > > I'm basically emailing to see if anyone else is interested in this or > if anyone has looked at using it before in OpenEmbedded as a google > for previous discussions didn't turn anything up. > > I'm currently very busy between various projects so I don't have time > to hack together a musl-libc recipe myself but I should have time to > help test it. > > Thanks, > > -- > Paul Barker > > Email: paul@paulbarker.me.uk > http://www.paulbarker.me.uk > -- > _______________________________________________ > yocto mailing list > yocto@yoctoproject.org > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: OpenEmbedded and musl-libc 2014-03-21 13:42 ` Kevyn-Alexandre Paré @ 2014-03-21 16:16 ` Kevyn-Alexandre Paré 0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Kevyn-Alexandre Paré @ 2014-03-21 16:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Barker; +Cc: Yocto discussion list, openembedded-core little start, I have started something see my bugzilla update: Stuck at: ERROR: QA Issue: musl-libc: Files/directories were installed but not shipped /usr/lib/musl-gcc.specs Any suggestions? -KA On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Kevyn-Alexandre Paré <kapare@rogue-research.com> wrote: > I will be interested for sure! > > I have added it to bugzilla as an enhancement. They were suggesting > new feature for 1.7 in the last meeting and suggesting to add them in > bugzilla as new feature. > > Please review if I filed the bug properly > https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6024 > > -KA > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Paul Barker <paul@paulbarker.me.uk> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> musl-libc hit version 1.0.0 yesterday and is starting to look good to >> me. It's basically a really small but very functional libc that would >> suit embedded environments very well as an alternative to >> eglibc/uclibc. I'm personally very interested in using it in my >> projects and I also think it could fit in well with the aims of >> poky-tiny. >> >> http://www.etalabs.net/compare_libcs.html gives some pretty useful info. >> >> I'm basically emailing to see if anyone else is interested in this or >> if anyone has looked at using it before in OpenEmbedded as a google >> for previous discussions didn't turn anything up. >> >> I'm currently very busy between various projects so I don't have time >> to hack together a musl-libc recipe myself but I should have time to >> help test it. >> >> Thanks, >> >> -- >> Paul Barker >> >> Email: paul@paulbarker.me.uk >> http://www.paulbarker.me.uk >> -- >> _______________________________________________ >> yocto mailing list >> yocto@yoctoproject.org >> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [OE-core] OpenEmbedded and musl-libc 2014-03-21 12:34 OpenEmbedded and musl-libc Paul Barker @ 2014-03-21 18:22 ` Khem Raj 2014-03-21 13:42 ` Kevyn-Alexandre Paré 2014-03-21 18:22 ` Khem Raj 2 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Khem Raj @ 2014-03-21 18:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Barker; +Cc: Yocto discussion list, openembedded-core On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:34 AM, Paul Barker <paul@paulbarker.me.uk> wrote: > Hi all, > > musl-libc hit version 1.0.0 yesterday and is starting to look good to > me. It's basically a really small but very functional libc that would > suit embedded environments very well as an alternative to > eglibc/uclibc. I'm personally very interested in using it in my > projects and I also think it could fit in well with the aims of > poky-tiny. > > http://www.etalabs.net/compare_libcs.html gives some pretty useful info. > > I'm basically emailing to see if anyone else is interested in this or > if anyone has looked at using it before in OpenEmbedded as a google > for previous discussions didn't turn anything up. > > I'm currently very busy between various projects so I don't have time > to hack together a musl-libc recipe myself but I should have time to > help test it. it has been under my radar for a while. I have actually locally made toolchains with clang+musl and it seems to be coming along. its licensed differently thats the biggest attraction for folks who do static linking. Otherwise it still doesnt yet support variety of architectures that other libcs support. given now we have kconfig for eglibc too may be it fills in the nommu gap much like uclibc does today. I have some plans for 1.7 for adding it to OE may be in a layer of its own first and then migrate it to OE-core > > Thanks, > > -- > Paul Barker > > Email: paul@paulbarker.me.uk > http://www.paulbarker.me.uk > -- > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: OpenEmbedded and musl-libc @ 2014-03-21 18:22 ` Khem Raj 0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Khem Raj @ 2014-03-21 18:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Barker; +Cc: Yocto discussion list, openembedded-core On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:34 AM, Paul Barker <paul@paulbarker.me.uk> wrote: > Hi all, > > musl-libc hit version 1.0.0 yesterday and is starting to look good to > me. It's basically a really small but very functional libc that would > suit embedded environments very well as an alternative to > eglibc/uclibc. I'm personally very interested in using it in my > projects and I also think it could fit in well with the aims of > poky-tiny. > > http://www.etalabs.net/compare_libcs.html gives some pretty useful info. > > I'm basically emailing to see if anyone else is interested in this or > if anyone has looked at using it before in OpenEmbedded as a google > for previous discussions didn't turn anything up. > > I'm currently very busy between various projects so I don't have time > to hack together a musl-libc recipe myself but I should have time to > help test it. it has been under my radar for a while. I have actually locally made toolchains with clang+musl and it seems to be coming along. its licensed differently thats the biggest attraction for folks who do static linking. Otherwise it still doesnt yet support variety of architectures that other libcs support. given now we have kconfig for eglibc too may be it fills in the nommu gap much like uclibc does today. I have some plans for 1.7 for adding it to OE may be in a layer of its own first and then migrate it to OE-core > > Thanks, > > -- > Paul Barker > > Email: paul@paulbarker.me.uk > http://www.paulbarker.me.uk > -- > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [OE-core] OpenEmbedded and musl-libc 2014-03-21 18:22 ` Khem Raj @ 2014-03-21 19:41 ` Paul Barker -1 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Paul Barker @ 2014-03-21 19:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Khem Raj; +Cc: Yocto discussion list, openembedded-core On 21 March 2014 18:22, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:34 AM, Paul Barker <paul@paulbarker.me.uk> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> musl-libc hit version 1.0.0 yesterday and is starting to look good to >> me. It's basically a really small but very functional libc that would >> suit embedded environments very well as an alternative to >> eglibc/uclibc. I'm personally very interested in using it in my >> projects and I also think it could fit in well with the aims of >> poky-tiny. >> >> http://www.etalabs.net/compare_libcs.html gives some pretty useful info. >> >> I'm basically emailing to see if anyone else is interested in this or >> if anyone has looked at using it before in OpenEmbedded as a google >> for previous discussions didn't turn anything up. >> >> I'm currently very busy between various projects so I don't have time >> to hack together a musl-libc recipe myself but I should have time to >> help test it. > > it has been under my radar for a while. I have actually locally made > toolchains with > clang+musl and it seems to be coming along. its licensed differently thats > the biggest attraction for folks who do static linking. Otherwise it still > doesnt yet support variety of architectures that other libcs support. given > now we have kconfig for eglibc too may be it fills in the nommu gap much > like uclibc does today. I have some plans for 1.7 for adding it to OE > may be in a layer > of its own first and then migrate it to OE-core > Yea, that's the sort of approach I was expecting. Getting musl to build is the easy bit, making it usable as the system libc for an entire image is the difficult bit. I think at least initially we'd need a few bbappends in a meta-musl layer to fix packages which don't compile out-of-the-box with musl. I don't think musl fills the nommu gap though - from the comparison page I linked to it says musl doesn't support mmu-less microcontrollers. -- Paul Barker Email: paul@paulbarker.me.uk http://www.paulbarker.me.uk ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: OpenEmbedded and musl-libc @ 2014-03-21 19:41 ` Paul Barker 0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Paul Barker @ 2014-03-21 19:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Khem Raj; +Cc: Yocto discussion list, openembedded-core On 21 March 2014 18:22, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:34 AM, Paul Barker <paul@paulbarker.me.uk> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> musl-libc hit version 1.0.0 yesterday and is starting to look good to >> me. It's basically a really small but very functional libc that would >> suit embedded environments very well as an alternative to >> eglibc/uclibc. I'm personally very interested in using it in my >> projects and I also think it could fit in well with the aims of >> poky-tiny. >> >> http://www.etalabs.net/compare_libcs.html gives some pretty useful info. >> >> I'm basically emailing to see if anyone else is interested in this or >> if anyone has looked at using it before in OpenEmbedded as a google >> for previous discussions didn't turn anything up. >> >> I'm currently very busy between various projects so I don't have time >> to hack together a musl-libc recipe myself but I should have time to >> help test it. > > it has been under my radar for a while. I have actually locally made > toolchains with > clang+musl and it seems to be coming along. its licensed differently thats > the biggest attraction for folks who do static linking. Otherwise it still > doesnt yet support variety of architectures that other libcs support. given > now we have kconfig for eglibc too may be it fills in the nommu gap much > like uclibc does today. I have some plans for 1.7 for adding it to OE > may be in a layer > of its own first and then migrate it to OE-core > Yea, that's the sort of approach I was expecting. Getting musl to build is the easy bit, making it usable as the system libc for an entire image is the difficult bit. I think at least initially we'd need a few bbappends in a meta-musl layer to fix packages which don't compile out-of-the-box with musl. I don't think musl fills the nommu gap though - from the comparison page I linked to it says musl doesn't support mmu-less microcontrollers. -- Paul Barker Email: paul@paulbarker.me.uk http://www.paulbarker.me.uk ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [OE-core] OpenEmbedded and musl-libc 2014-03-21 18:22 ` Khem Raj (?) (?) @ 2014-03-26 16:48 ` Thomas Petazzoni 2014-03-26 21:49 ` [yocto] " Khem Raj -1 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Thomas Petazzoni @ 2014-03-26 16:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Khem Raj; +Cc: Yocto discussion list, openembedded-core Dear Khem Raj, On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 11:22:24 -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > it has been under my radar for a while. I have actually locally made > toolchains with > clang+musl and it seems to be coming along. its licensed differently thats > the biggest attraction for folks who do static linking. Otherwise it still > doesnt yet support variety of architectures that other libcs support. given > now we have kconfig for eglibc too may be it fills in the nommu gap much > like uclibc does today. The non-MMU gap? Last time I looked, musl didn't had support for any non-MMU architecture. See also http://lists.uclibc.org/pipermail/uclibc/2014-February/048258.html: """ > Do you intend to have support for non-MMU architectures in musl? At present there isn't a plan to, but we're not particularly opposed to it either. The big questions are how invasive it would be and whether we can provide full functionality in any reasonable way. The answers to those questions wouldn't translate directly to a yes or no but would be an important part of considerations. It would probably help to have someone familiar with the technical aspects of supporting non-MMU archs discuss it with us on our mailing list or IRC channel. Rich """ Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [OE-core] OpenEmbedded and musl-libc 2014-03-26 16:48 ` [OE-core] " Thomas Petazzoni @ 2014-03-26 21:49 ` Khem Raj 0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Khem Raj @ 2014-03-26 21:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Thomas Petazzoni; +Cc: Yocto discussion list, openembedded-core On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> wrote: > Dear Khem Raj, > > On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 11:22:24 -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > >> it has been under my radar for a while. I have actually locally made >> toolchains with >> clang+musl and it seems to be coming along. its licensed differently thats >> the biggest attraction for folks who do static linking. Otherwise it still >> doesnt yet support variety of architectures that other libcs support. given >> now we have kconfig for eglibc too may be it fills in the nommu gap much >> like uclibc does today. > > The non-MMU gap? Last time I looked, musl didn't had support for any > non-MMU architecture. yes it does not. I meant to state the reverse that mmu-less systems is where uclibc will have edge left. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: [yocto] OpenEmbedded and musl-libc @ 2014-03-26 21:49 ` Khem Raj 0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Khem Raj @ 2014-03-26 21:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Thomas Petazzoni; +Cc: Yocto discussion list, openembedded-core On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> wrote: > Dear Khem Raj, > > On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 11:22:24 -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > >> it has been under my radar for a while. I have actually locally made >> toolchains with >> clang+musl and it seems to be coming along. its licensed differently thats >> the biggest attraction for folks who do static linking. Otherwise it still >> doesnt yet support variety of architectures that other libcs support. given >> now we have kconfig for eglibc too may be it fills in the nommu gap much >> like uclibc does today. > > The non-MMU gap? Last time I looked, musl didn't had support for any > non-MMU architecture. yes it does not. I meant to state the reverse that mmu-less systems is where uclibc will have edge left. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-03-26 21:49 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 18+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2014-03-21 12:34 OpenEmbedded and musl-libc Paul Barker 2014-03-21 13:10 ` [OE-core] " Burton, Ross 2014-03-21 13:10 ` Burton, Ross 2014-03-21 13:26 ` [OE-core] " Seth Bollinger 2014-03-21 13:26 ` [yocto] " Seth Bollinger 2014-03-26 16:44 ` [OE-core] " Thomas Petazzoni 2014-03-21 14:37 ` Paul Barker 2014-03-21 14:37 ` Paul Barker 2014-03-26 16:46 ` [OE-core] " Thomas Petazzoni 2014-03-21 13:42 ` Kevyn-Alexandre Paré 2014-03-21 16:16 ` Kevyn-Alexandre Paré 2014-03-21 18:22 ` [OE-core] " Khem Raj 2014-03-21 18:22 ` Khem Raj 2014-03-21 19:41 ` [OE-core] " Paul Barker 2014-03-21 19:41 ` Paul Barker 2014-03-26 16:48 ` [OE-core] " Thomas Petazzoni 2014-03-26 21:49 ` Khem Raj 2014-03-26 21:49 ` [yocto] " Khem Raj
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.