Functions not really "compliant"
Peter S. Mazinger
ps.m at gmx.net
Mon Jan 2 14:39:36 UTC 2006
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005, Natanael Copa wrote:
> On tor, 2005-12-29 at 20:05 +0100, Peter S. Mazinger wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > The attached list is what coreutils' configure detects as uncompliant
> > functions and replaces them w/ the gnu counterparts (xstr* replace str*
> > for ex.). This is not really good for embedded if anyone intends to put
> > more than busybox on the target, because each app will become bigger as
> > needed, having static versions built into them.
> > Should we try to get these tests pass on uClibc, so we don't end up w/
> > static versions compiled in?
>
> Would this increase the size of uclibc for those who don't use
> coreutils?
coreutils is only an example, any gnu app is building a static lib (named
lib/libfetish.a for coreutils) that has all the functions found as
uncompliant by configure and will be linked into the apps.
For those using only non-gnu apps in conjunction w/ uClibc, there would be
no win to provide them by uClibc as expected by configure, all the others
would have some increase in uClibc itself, but the apps themselves would
be smaller.
> Would it be possible to add getaddrinfo() to the list of funtions not really "compliant"?
>
> ipsec-tools-0.6 fails to compile with this error:
>
> checking getaddrinfo bug... buggy
> configure: error: Broken getaddrinfo() is no longer supported. Aborting.
can't recall exactly, try disabling ipv6
Peter
--
Peter S. Mazinger <ps dot m at gmx dot net> ID: 0xA5F059F2
Key fingerprint = 92A4 31E1 56BC 3D5A 2D08 BB6E C389 975E A5F0 59F2
More information about the uClibc
mailing list