Roman Zippel wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
The i386 ones are a bit special... usually the reason I have added libgcc
functions is that on some architectures, gcc has various problems linking with
libgcc in some configurations.
If gcc has problems to link its own libgcc you really have a serious
problem...
The way libgcc is handled inside gcc is, indeed, completely screwed up;
even the gcc people admit that. They pretty much don't have a way to
handle the effects of compiler options on libgcc, especially the ones
that affect binary compatibility.
However, that affects only a small minority of configurations (MIPS is one.)
The standard libgcc may not be as small as you like, but it still should
be the first choice. If there is a problem with it, the gcc people do
accept patches.
That's just an asinine statement. Under that logic we should just
forget about the kernel and go hack the gcc bugs du jour; we certainly
have enough workarounds for gcc bugs in the kernel.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with providing an override for a
function which has well-defined semantics. If new functions are needed,
they are pulled from libgcc.
-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
