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: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- Subject: Re: My proposal for the libgcc runtime ABI (ia64 gcc/glibc is broken.)
- From: Jason R Thorpe <thorpej at zembu dot com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 09:25:11 -0700
- Cc: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>,"H . J . Lu" <hjl at valinux dot com>, Ulrich Drepper <drepper at cygnus dot com>,law at cygnus dot com, Mark Kettenis <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
- Organization: Zembu Labs, Inc.
- References: <20000714065954.E862@dr-evil.shagadelic.org> <200007141421.PAA08221@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com>
- Reply-To: thorpej at zembu dot com
On Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 03:21:32PM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> This isn't quite true. We don't install a shared libgcc on BSD platforms
> because libc has replacements for the most common libgcc functions built
> into it. This is an equally disgusting hack because it assumes that the
> definitions in there will be sufficient even if the compiler is upgraded.
> I suspect it will cause even more problems moving forward when we need to
> include exception management support.
Err, which functions, specifically? If you're talking about stuff
like __ashlsi3, the m68k ports have that stuff in libc mostly as
an historical accident (Utah put them in there in the HP-BSD days,
and they were just never really removed, even though libgcc has those
functions as well).
...or are you referring to something else?
(Serious question ... if I am misunderstanding this, I would like to
understand it better...)
--
-- Jason R. Thorpe <thorpej@zembu.com>