Re: Defaults when cross-compiling

On 11/8/23 9:59 PM, Michael T. Kloos wrote: It seems to me that Autoconf (configure) is making some bad choices if it is just guessing that support exists like that, especially when it has a guaranteed fallback.  It's job is to setup the build for the target host system. I think you don't

Re: Defaults when cross-compiling

It seems to me that Autoconf (configure) is making some bad choices if it is just guessing that support exists like that, especially when it has a guaranteed fallback.  It's job is to setup the build for the target host system.  I was able to fix the build by using --without-bash-malloc. 

Re: Defaults when cross-compiling

On 11/7/23 10:03 AM, Oğuz wrote: On Tuesday, November 7, 2023, Chet Ramey > wrote: It's interesting that musl supports brk but not sbrk It doesn't support locales either. I always assumed it's someone's toy project but looks like there are Linux distros

Re: Defaults when cross-compiling

On Tuesday, November 7, 2023, Chet Ramey wrote: > > It's interesting that musl supports brk but not sbrk It doesn't support locales either. I always assumed it's someone's toy project but looks like there are Linux distros shipping it instead of glibc. Huh -- Oğuz

Re: Defaults when cross-compiling

On 11/6/23 10:39 PM, Michael T. Kloos wrote: I was trying to cross-compile bash for musl libc.  The configure script reports: checking for working sbrk... configure: WARNING: cannot check working sbrk if cross-compiling yes In this case, the bash configure assumes that sbrk is present and

Defaults when cross-compiling

I was trying to cross-compile bash for musl libc.  The configure script reports: checking for working sbrk... configure: WARNING: cannot check working sbrk if cross-compiling yes However, I don't believe musl libc supports sbrk. However, autoconf seems to default to assuming yes and sets the