Re: RFC: Patch to libgcc2.h

[Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>]

  In message <200006151625.JAA05704@casey.cygnus.com>you write:
  > Jakub's December 27 patch to libgcc2.c broke a lot of libgcc bits for
  > 16-bit targets; the #defines to change, say, the definition of
  > __floatdisf to actually define __floatsisf produced conflicts with
  > better versions from libgcc1 and fp-bit.c.  In the case I've been
  > looking at, that definition was used rather than the one from
  > fp-bit.c, and so any code that needed to use __floatsisf ended up
  > going into an infinite recursion.
  > 
  > It's wrong to assume that things just scale down to smaller word
  > sizes.  Or perhaps it's right, but libgcc1 (in all its various
  > incarnations) and fp-bit.c and the compiler optabs need to be adjusted
  > as well.
  > 
  > This patch returns us to the state of affairs from before
  > Jakub's patch, namely that 16-bit targets again get definitions of
  > dimode functions that they'll never use, but gcc seems perfectly happy
  > to generate code for them, at least for the h8300 (which, admittedly,
  > is not a pure 16-bit part).
  > 
  > Any other thoughts as to how to solve this problem?
  > 
  > 2000-06-14  Jason Merrill  <jason@redhat.com>
  > 
  > 	* libgcc2.h: Lose special handling of 8 and 16-bit targets.
Did we ever decide on a fix for this problem?  I think 16bit targets are
still blowing up because of libgcc2 issues.

jeff