Re: Call for compiler help/advice: atomic builtins for v3

[Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>]

> 
> This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
> --------------enig26EB7A814A3B685CD0FE59C5
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> 
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > The only real problem with this is that it mandates use of shared
> > libgcc for the routines in question... always.  If they ever go into
> > libgcc.a, we can't make sure we got the right copy.
> 
> This is what lies ahead of us anyway.  Solaris apparently official
> denounced static linking for the system libs completely and you can find
> many comments to the same effect from me, too.  We have to get away from
> the limitations static linking is imposing.

So has Mac OS X (darwin) but this did not keep libgcc from being a static
library until Apple started to use GCC 4.0.

> For those who really really need static linking, use the least common
> denominator.   It's those people who have to pay the price, not the
> (sane) rest of us.

You mean like embeded targets.  Though for embedded targets usually you
only want the version for processor and don't care about anything else.

Uli you keep forgetting about other OS which don't use elf (like Mac OS X),
though for Mac OS X, it is easier to support this as the way mach-o handles
fat binaries, you only really need one libgcc which contains the functions
for all of subprocessor types.


-- Pinski