Hi,
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > 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.
Nobody said it's perfect. Especially the last point speaks against
multiple versions of the same library, as it makes it hard to mix
binaries/libraries. With a single kinit binary it's not really a problem
yet, but will it stay this way?
> > 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.
Sorry, but I can't follow this logic.
bye, Roman
-
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]
