On Thu, 2005-11-03 at 15:29 -0600, Rob Landley wrote: > On Thursday 03 November 2005 13:57, Roland Dreier wrote: > > > On Thursday 03 November 2005 12:51, Robert Schwebel wrote: > > > > [...] klibc didn't compile for ARCH=um. > > > > > > I repeat my question: what is it that didn't compile, klibc or the > > > kernel? > > > > come on, dude -- how much clearer can he be? > > Ah, I see. The linux kernel headers you feed it were from a kernel compiled > with ARCH=um. Right. It's been a while since I tried feeding any libc > actual kernel headers. (I build uClibc against the cleaned up userspace ones > here: http://ep09.pld-linux.org/~mmazur/linux-libc-headers/ .) > > It's also been a while since I played with klibc, and I notice that it doesn't > work with Maszur's headers. (It sort of works, with lots of warnings, until > about halfway through when it wants to touch "asm/signal.h", when Maszur's > just has linux/signal.h, and symlinking the two still isn't happy because > sigset_t is never defined... In klibc there's definitions for ia64, sparc, > and parisc. But nothing for x86... > > Ok, checking 2.6.14/include/asm-i386 it's an unsigned long, so typedef that... > Nope, still not happy, wants numerous other symbols now... Okay, try > grabbing asm-i386/signal.h from libc... And asm-generic/signal.h which > _that_ includes... And now there's a "previous declaration of 'wait3"' > conflicting. Beautiful...) > > Ok, I remember why I stopped playing with klibc now. It's still deep in > alpha-test stage, requires way more incestuous knowledge of the kernel > headers than anything not bundled with the kernel itself has any excuse for, > and I'm still not sure what advantage it claims to have over uClibc except > for being BSD licensed. > Well, apparently the plan is to eventually bundle it with the kernel if not mistaken. Also, it have seen a stable release, and it works well for what it was intended for, and still have a less footprint than uClibc if space is really an issue. > If you have to make it work, I'd suggest extracting a fresh kernel tarball, do > "make allyesconfig" (without ARCH=um), and use _those_ headers. Or just > accept that it doesn't work and try uClibc. :) > It does work, just need to be fixed up for ARCH=um compiled kernel. I did a quick hack to do this, but HPA don't like it (and I do not blame him). Can be found here: http://bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=67478 -- Martin Schlemmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: initramfs for /dev/console with udev?
- From: Rob Landley <[email protected]>
- Re: initramfs for /dev/console with udev?
- References:
- initramfs for /dev/console with udev?
- From: Robert Schwebel <[email protected]>
- Re: initramfs for /dev/console with udev?
- From: Rob Landley <[email protected]>
- Re: initramfs for /dev/console with udev?
- From: Roland Dreier <[email protected]>
- Re: initramfs for /dev/console with udev?
- From: Rob Landley <[email protected]>
- initramfs for /dev/console with udev?
- Prev by Date: Re: [Lhms-devel] [PATCH 0/7] Fragmentation Avoidance V19
- Next by Date: Re: [Lhms-devel] [PATCH 0/7] Fragmentation Avoidance V19
- Previous by thread: Re: initramfs for /dev/console with udev?
- Next by thread: Re: initramfs for /dev/console with udev?
- Index(es):