[Aboriginal] What's musl, anyway?
rob at landley.net
Wed Oct 12 22:27:59 PDT 2011
On 10/12/2011 12:35 AM, John Spencer wrote:
> On 10/08/2011 07:27 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
>> I note that uClibc currently has no s390 support, but these days QEMU
>> _does_. This means I can't support all the QEMU targets using uClibc
>> unless their development community gets fundamentally unstuck.
>> If musl supported that target and uClibc didn't, I'd logically want to
>> see about getting musl support into aboriginal itself.
> as it looks currently, you'd have to make that port yourself ;)
If I wanted to use musl, yes. I'll put it on the todo list somewhere
after upgrading LFS to 6.8, getting funtoo-bootstrap to work, fixing
chroot in the kernel and rewriting lxc, getting virtconsole to work,
transitioning everything to device trees...
> actually the arm port has just been finished and as it looks i'm
> currently the only using/testing it...
Did anybody build Linux From Scratch against i686 musl?
> i'd expect mips/ppc support coming next, *if* some other ports will
> happen in the near future.
>> (This would mean
>> at minimum building current busybox against it, plus an older GPLv2
>> release of a gnu toolchain (gcc 4.2.1, binutils-1.17, and make 3.81 were
>> the last GPLv2 releases, and bash 2.05b is "good enough" about about 1/3
>> the size of modern bash.)
> make 3.81 has the additional advantage that it builds older kernels as
> well, since some breaking change has been introduced with make 3.82 (for
> example linux 2.6.25 won't build on 3.82)
Like Microsoft, the FSF believes you should never use stuff they didn't
write. They give lip service to portability and backwards compatability
but in reality?
When they break other people's stuff, they claim concern but actually
> the binutils however are too old to play nice with musl.
I've got the binutils todo item, I hope to get to it this weekend. :)
(You may have noticed, I sometimes need reminding. But right now: day job.)
>> The rest of the packages used during the aboriginal linux build are
>> distcc, e2fsprogs, genext2fs, and squashfs (which requires zlib). (And
>> of course current linux but it doesn't depend on libc.)
> is aufs enabled as well ?
1) I went to a union filesystem talk at OLS in 2006. I followed val
henson's blog about union filesystem work for years. I've followed
kernel threads about union filesystem stuff. I've seen something like
five union filesystem implementations for Linux over the years, and when
you said "aufs" I thought it was referring to the Andrew Filesystem.
2) I use /sbin/chroot-setup.sh and just cp most of it and bind mount
other bits to get a writeable chroot.
3) Back before squashfs was merged I forward-ported it multiple times,
taking various gentoo snapshots and such for each new kernel version.
Then I stopped because out of tree patches are a huge amount of work to
keep current and it breaks every single release.
I'd love to have a union filesystem merged upstream, but I'm doing
vanilla packages. If it's not in vanilla, it's out of scope for this
> i thought about adding support for that to my
> build manager, as it turned out that decompressing the kernel each time
> i build it eats a lot of time (about 10 minutes in qemu).
Decompressing the kernel on my _host_ laptop takes over a minute. It's
kind of enormous. That's why I implemented the package cache:
Conceptually you can gloss over all that as "extract and patch tarball,
bulid it, then rm -rf when you're done", but using the package cache is
way the heck faster than that for repeated builds. (Both of which are
why I put up with the complexity of doing it.)
> doing the
> untaring in a separate step and overlay it with a build-only directory
> would allow simply trashing the built stuff and restart clean without
> having to untar again (since "make clean" won't remove patches, and so on).
Um, yes. That's the package cache. (cp -l is a marvelous thing. The
config entry SNAPSHOT_SYMLINK can do symlinks though, and explains why
you might want to. Yes, I tried it both way and wound up making it
configurable. The build control images use symlinks because they're
crossing filesystems, since /mnt is bind mounted from the squashfs but
/home is generally ext3.)
>>>> (In aboriginal, all the information about a specific target is in the
>>>> sources/targets files, one per target. At one point many moons ago i
>>>> had documentation about adding a new target. um...
>>>> http://landley.net/aboriginal/documentation.html#new_target I think.
>>>> Wow that's out of date...)
>> I need at least a month to do nothing but documentation, but I know from
>> experience it wouldn't be enough.
> the aboriginal infrastructure is indeed pretty sweet and i was thinking
> about wether i should adopt parts of it.
> especially the automatic distcc configuration, although the
> preprocessing power needed for some stuff makes it nearly useless in
> those cases. if that bottleneck could be removed, it would even make
> sense to allow to add more distcc-servers.
Actually I think the current bottleneck is that the network's only dong
300k/second even with a gigabit interface. (10baseT is 1100ksecond,
100baseT is 11,000k/second. That's RIDICULOUSLY slow, and it didn't
_used_ to be, trying to figure out what regressed. Possibly linux 3.0
issue fighting with the emulator? Need to track it down...)
Also, tinycc's preprocessor is faster than gcc's, and the one in my fork
at least was fairly compatible...
> well, maybe some day a sane person (which happens to know python) will
> come and port the distcc pump stuff to C, or just rewrite it from scratch.
One of the great things about distcc is that coverting C99 .c into an
elf .o is fairly resistant to version skew. All the stuff that has to
match _up_ version-wise is in the headersand the libraries, all of which
are handled on a single central node that has just one copy of everything.
Distributing the preprocessing reintroduces the possibility of version
skew. It requires each distcc node to have compatible headers _and_ to
get the header search paths correct on a system that has more than one
set of headers installed. I.E. it's inherently less reliable for what
One problem that does need to be fixed is that distcc doesn't always
distribute compiles (compile and link on the same line, for example, or
turning more than one .c file into a combined .o file), and it doesn't
tell you when it DOESN'T distribute so it's hard to figure out whether
or not it's working.
I.E. writing my own tiny distcc (extending ccwrap.c to do this,
basically) is on my todo list. Probably requires my own daemon. I
looked into it but it's not a half-hour job...
>> You're aware of uClibc++, right? (My project builds it and all. :)
>> It's a bit stalled right now, but I have Garret's phone number around
>> here somewhere...
>> What's needed _in_ the libc? Stack unwinding cruft?
> from what i've heard there's special atexit/dynlink stuff needed and
> partially some symbol names clash.
> currently there's some discussion about that on the musl mailinglist.
Ah right, global class instance constructors and destructors. I forgot
They implemented a horrible name mangling thing requiring them to break
the linker _and_ gdb, and they couldn't avoid conflicting with existing
That's just sad.
>>>>> i was told that it is faster and takes way less ram than gnu ld.
>>>>> (which is not very surprising, given the quality of average gnu code)
>>>> The tinycc linker is also buckets faster and less memory intensive than
>>>> gnu ld.
>>> how about this one ? http://code.google.com/p/ucpp/
> actually that is a *preprocessor*... we were talking about ripping out
> the tcc preprocessor somewhere else...
tinycc is a self-contained all in one compiler. It's got a
preprocessor, a compiler, an assembler, and a linker, all in one binary.
(It still needs stuff like objdump.)
>> I expect gcc's days are numbered but displacing it is like displacing
>> windows: it's an entrenched standard zealously defended by egocentric
>> bastards out to impose Their Way upon the world, so there's work to do
>> getting rid of it:
> i was looking lately at the tendra compiler, which has just been
> uploaded to https://bitbucket.org/asmodai/tendra/
> that seems like a well designed compiler with good optimization potential.
I went through a dozen open-sourceish compilers once. Most were
incomplete and kind of crap. I vaguely recall that one, don't remember
what was wrong with it, this was a few years back...
> it uses some internal intermediate format (which is even standardized),
> which then gets optimized according to the target.
> however the build system is pretty outdated and i was unable to
> bootstrap it in its current state.
> i hope some activity on that project will start soon...
I vaguely remember watcom got open sourced as abandonware a while ago.
Having code with no community isn't very useful.
>>>> Too bad the maintainer of that project is a windows developer,
>>>> if it would just DIE I'd restart my fork but I refuse to fight zombies
>>>> without a cricket bat.
>>> hmm iirc the mob branch is the only active. it's not even that bad, i
>>> checked it out lately and it built stuff which tcc 0.9.25 refused to build.
>> My tree also built a lot of stuff 0.9.25 refused to build. That was
>> sort of the point of my tree.
> really unfortunate that you stopped it. but i have read your statement
> and respect your reasons.
> in the meantime, an uncoordinated "mob" drives the project on repo.or.cz ;)
And you understand why that's a bad thing, right?
>>> actually it is so broken that it defeats the purpose of the FSF, in that
>>> it makes it too hard to change and recompile your free software, making
>>> it unfree that way.
>> The FSF has been self defeating for many years. If you want a RANT:
>> (First part is background necessary to understand the second part. I
>> keep meaning to write a book on computer history, but I have too many
>> other things to do...)
> the mail from rms about "making the code hard to use" to get evil
> companies out is indeed shocking.
> it seems GNU software sucks by design.
Yup. He's been shouted down from that position more recently, but the
damage is done and he doesn't really change his mind, he just changes
his tactics sometimes.
>>>> You have to add said flag to the preprocessor as well, it sets a bunch
>>>> of symbols telling you about your current target. Go:
>>>> gcc -E -dM -< /dev/null | less
>>>> Now do that for each of the cross compilers and diff the result. :)
>>> ... thats quite a list.
>> Now ponder that list and go "hey, it tells me my current target and my
>> current endianness... what is half of ./configure for, anyway?"
Not to mention #include <endian.h> and...
>> Add in
>> "what is libtool for", or the fact that pkg-config is so obviously
>> stupid you can sum it up with stick figures http://xkcd.com/927/
>> (because rpm and dpkg and portage and pacman and bitbake and so on
>> weren't _enough_), and PKG_CONFIG=/bin/true is a beautiful thing...
> PKG_CONFIG=/bin/true <- that actually works ?
Sometimes. (It returns success and says that whatever it is was NOT
installed. If your build is ok with that, great. If not, maybe
PKG_CONFIG="echo" or something might work, I haven't tried it.)
Half of cross compiling is working out exactly how to lie to ./configure
_this_ time around.
>>>> You've learned never to install Libtool on Linux, right?
>>> most stuff actually seems to come with its own libtool.
>>> however i just found out that you have to delete *.la and magically
>>> stuff builds, that failed earlier.
>> Once upon a time I meant to do a libtool-stub that actually WOULD be a
>> NOP successfully, like http://penma.de/code/gettext-stub/ and my little
>> trick here:
>> (lines 31-41).
> "Autoconf is useless" ;)
You've got to do the vogon voice, though.
>> Anyway: I need to make a NOP libtool that I can symlink the others to,
>> which just converts the command line arguments to ld format and does
>> NOTHING ELSE. A small shell script, probably. Then ln -sf as needed.
> i shall appreciate it as well.
You see how my todo list gets insane?
>>>> Um, send me a link again?
>> Ah yes. I'll try to get to it this weekend.
> thanks for the patch. will test it as soon as the kernel compile is
That _really_ shouldn't take that long. I'm poking at it... (This is
the armv6l target? I built the whole of linux from scratch on that
More information about the Aboriginal