zlacker

[return to "Zig Libc"]
◧
1. tiffan+8M1[view] [source] 2026-02-03 02:08:17
>>ingve+(OP)
Does this mean long term Zig won’t run on OpenBSD?

Because doesn’t OpenBSD block direct syscalls & force everything to go through libc.

>>38039689

◧◩
2. AndyKe+9O1[view] [source] 2026-02-03 02:21:48
>>tiffan+8M1
This affects static libc only. If you pass -dynamic -lc then the libc functions are provided by the target system. Some systems only support dynamic libc, such as macOS. I think OpenBSD actually does support static libc though.
◧◩◪
3. winter+XV1[view] [source] 2026-02-03 03:24:33
>>AndyKe+9O1
> I think OpenBSD actually does support static libc though.

How does that work, with syscalls being unable to be called except from the system’s libc? I’d be a bit surprised if any binary’s embedded libc would support this model.

◧◩◪◨
4. manana+w02[view] [source] 2026-02-03 04:04:10
>>winter+XV1
For static executables, “the system’s libc” is of course not a thing. To support those, OpenBSD requires them to include an exhaustive list of all addresses of syscall instructions in a predefined place[1].

(With that said, OpenBSD promises no stability if you choose to bypass libc. What it promises instead is that it will change things in incompatible ways that will hurt. It’s up to you whether the pain that thus results from supporting OpenBSD is worth it.)

[1] https://nullprogram.com/blog/2025/03/06/

[go to top]