On Tue, 2018-09-04 at 01:39 +0800, Casper Ti. Vector wrote: > Although I have tried neither of lh-bootstrap or mkroot [1], I > noticed that the toolchains of the former is nearly one > magnitude smaller than those [2] of the latter, while both > seem to be based on musl and statically linked. > > [1] <https://github.com/landley/mkroot>. > [2] <https://b.zv.io/mcm/bin/>. > > Out of curiosity, may I ask what is the cause of this huge > difference?
The ones in [3] are not stripped, and that accounts for most of the size discrepancy. I will ask Rob to consider adding that to his 'mcm-buildall.sh' script. I simply build/host binaries. > Additionally, is there a possibility that the two projects > join forces, so one becomes an add-on to the other, and > minimising wheel reinvention? > As far as musl-cross-make goes, those are currently GCC 6.4.0 and there are concerns that 7.x and 8.x may have introduced regressions. Several versions [1] [2] are of course available on skarnet.org, so that's fine. Once musl 1.1.20 drops we'll have m68k too. The mkroot/mcm toolchains follow directly from [4] and at the moment we don't interfere with that process at all. The other difference is that all of the cross toolchains in [3] are i686 while Laurent's are x86_64 only. So at the moment there does not appear to be any wheel problem. I like the idea of combining efforts to offer a consistent, wide selection of static toolchains and possibly additional tooling such as static QEMU, MinGW, others (not just what's on my site). ZV [1]: https://skarnet.org/toolchains/native/ [2]: https://skarnet.org/toolchains/cross/ [3]: https://b.zv.io/mcm/bin/ [4]: https://github.com/richfelker/musl-cross-make