This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, ARM] Avoid pulling in unwinder for 64-bit division
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- Cc: Julian Brown <julian at codesourcery dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 09:20:13 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, ARM] Avoid pulling in unwinder for 64-bit division
- References: <20091027141012.40ff0d90@rex.config> <mcreionfua9.fsf@dhcp-172-17-9-151.mtv.corp.google.com> <20091028160320.23a90a9d@rex.config> <mcrws2fe8gm.fsf@dhcp-172-17-9-151.mtv.corp.google.com>
Catching up on mail...
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 10:26:01AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Looking again at
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-10/msg01618.html
> I don't understand why you want to change shared-object.mk or
> static-object.mk.
>
> I'll approve the change to libgcc/Makefile.in if the ARM maintainers
> approve the rest of the patch.
This part is somewhat my fault; I can explain it.
A variable in the body of the rule is expanded when the rule is run,
not when the rule is defined (unlike a variable in the target or
dependencies). The changes to *-object.mk save $(c_flags) when the
rule is defined.
>From Makefile.in:
c_flags :=
iter-items := $(LIB2ADD) $(LIB2ADD_ST)
include $(iterator)
...
c_flags := -fexceptions
iter-items := $(sort $(LIB2ADDEHSTATIC) $(LIB2ADDEHSHARED))
include $(iterator)
Take a look at a libgcc build log. We're using -fexceptions for more
than was intended.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery