Re: [arm] Use EABI unwind library

[Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>]

On Tue, 2004-10-12 at 18:47, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> 
> >>I'm pretty uncomfortable with putting this on the mainline.  I know that 
> >>we need this for full EABI compatibility in 4.0 -- but I think this is 
> >>not Stage 3 material, due to the changes to gcc/except.c and the V3 
> >>bits, even though I see that those are pretty minimal.  Let's queue this 
> >>for 4.1.  (Our internal Wiki has a list of ARM patches queued for 4.1 -- 
> >>presently empty.)  If Richard E. wants to lobby for this in 4.0 after he 
> >>comes back from vacation, he can try to convince Richard Henderson (EH) 
> >>and Benjamin Koznik (V3); I'd feel differently if those folks wanted to 
> >>go ahead with this patch as well, but I feel tremendously uncomfortable 
> >>approving this directly.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >The problem with this is that without this code the C++ compiler is so
> >fundamentally non-compliant that we might as well disable building of
> >G++ entirely.  And that means we'd have to wait nearly another year[1]
> >before we had an FSF release that was compliant.
> >  
> >
> I think that, then, you should try to convince Richard Henderson and 
> Benjamin Koznik that these changes are valuable.  If it is OK with them, 
> I would be OK with it, but I do not want to push changes into subsytems 
> that I do not maintain in a way that could be perceived as a favor for a 
> CodeSourcery customer.  I'd also be open to a conditional compilation 
> solution; if Richard H. feels uncomfortable with the EH changes, maybe 
> he'd be happier with them #ifdef'd.
> 

Richard?


> I think the worst case is that we create csl-arm-4_0-branch, which 
> differs from the 4_0-branch only by this patch.

That still creates some problems, because although it's the same as an
FSF release, it's not *the FSF* release, which is what a lot of
developers want (and they want to use the same toolchain for all
targets).

R.