This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: My proposal for the libgcc runtime ABI (ia64 gcc/glibc is broken.)
- To: "Martin v. Loewis" <martin at loewis dot home dot cs dot tu-berlin dot de>
- Subject: Re: My proposal for the libgcc runtime ABI (ia64 gcc/glibc is broken.)
- From: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at valinux dot com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 14:36:25 -0700
- Cc: drepper at cygnus dot com, law at cygnus dot com, kettenis at wins dot uva dot nl,rth at twiddle dot net, libc-hacker at sourceware dot cygnus dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <5003.963333245@upchuck> <m31z10k1h6.fsf@otr.mynet.cygnus.com> <200007112126.XAA01019@loewis.home.cs.tu-berlin.de>
On Tue, Jul 11, 2000 at 11:26:57PM +0200, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
>
> > Besides, I have not heard a single convincing argument why libgcc.so
> > should be generate as part of gcc. What do you want to achieve?
>
> It is likely that gcc maintainers will add functions to libgcc as they
> please, and that the code generated by gcc will rely on these
> functions being inside libgcc. So how should gcc proceed on a system
> where these new functions are not present in the system libgcc?
>
It has happened:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2000-07/msg00018.html
That is why we discuss libgcc.so here.
--
H.J. Lu (hjl@gnu.org)