This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [arm] Use EABI unwind library
- From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- To: rth at redhat dot com
- Cc: Paul Brook <paul at codesourcery dot com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:48:26 +0100
- Subject: Re: [arm] Use EABI unwind library
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <4150EE1D.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <416C189E.email@example.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
> >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.
> 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