From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Stefan_Fr=F6berg?= Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 20:48:38 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] RTLD_DEEPBIND and uClibc In-Reply-To: References: <50F6A26D.4030607@petroprogram.com> <20130117000037.39ccc628@skate> <50F74776.60503@petroprogram.com> <20130117093159.2d46ecfd@skate> <50F8019C.4000003@petroprogram.com> <50F82C1B.2040709@petroprogram.com> Message-ID: <50F84786.7030900@petroprogram.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net 17.1.2013 19:09, Alex Bradbury kirjoitti: > On 17 January 2013 16:51, Stefan Fr?berg > wrote: >> Is it true that musl supports (at least most) of the glibc ABI ? >> (my biggest worry so far when using uClibc is that I encounter an >> application that is provided as glibc-only >> binary and no source code provided.) > Yes, this is one of the goals. There was a big discussion on the musl > mailing list in > December. One of the aims is glibc ABI compatibility, with > applications like Opera being discussed on the list. Development is > *very* active and Rich Felker (lead dev) seems to respond very quickly > to issues or bug reports. > > In fact, I've fallen behind following the musl mailing list the last > couple of months but see a recent posts that indicate there has been > good glibc ABI progress > . Of > course many of the proprietary apps are likely to use C++, and the C++ > ABI is...fiddly. > >> What about it's configuration ? Does it have nice kconf style "make >> menuconfig" like uClibc or what ? > I don't *think* so, but could be wrong. Still, it aims to be > substantially lighterweight than glibc, while hopefully providing more > performant implementations of functions than either glibc or uclibc. > > Alex Thanks Alex! I will keep watching that list. Stefan