On Thu, 2018-01-25 at 13:58 +1100, Ben Elliston wrote: > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 03:46:59PM +1300, Henri wrote: > > > > > The config.guess script currently only checks for the glibc, uclibc, > > and dietlibc libraries. The attached patch adds support for the musl > > C library. Unfortunately, features.h in musl does not define a > > __MUSL__ macro (or similar) which is why this has to be the new > > default case instead of glibc. If features.h or a C compiler are not > > available it will default to gnu as before. > I'm not crash hot on this patch, sorry. The next time we get a new C > library that also fails to identify itself through some means, we're > hosed as we won't be able to distinguish it from MUSL. > > Can you please add some mechanism to MUSL and then we can check for > that? Obviously there will be a period where old MUSL versions won't > be guessed, but the user can specify those with --build, --host or > --target.
Sorry, I am not a musl developer and their policy strictly forbids identifying itself, see the section "Why is there no __MUSL__ macro?" in the FAQ at https://wiki.musl-libc.org/faq.html Another option to determine the libc version would be to parse the output of "ldd --version". On Ubuntu this gives $ ldd --version ldd (Ubuntu GLIBC 2.23-0ubuntu10) 2.23 ... And on the musl-based Alpine Linux $ ldd --version musl libc (x86_64) Version 1.1.18 ... However I am neither sure whether ldd is required by POSIX nor whether it is required to report the libc version. Best regards, Henri > > Cheers, Ben _______________________________________________ config-patches mailing list config-patches@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/config-patches
