This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Unexpected presence of __eprintf in libgcc.a when using newlib
- From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>
- To: "Thomas Preud'homme" <thomas dot preudhomme at arm dot com>
- Cc: GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 20:20:47 -0700
- Subject: Re: Unexpected presence of __eprintf in libgcc.a when using newlib
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <005201cf5306$7de51cb0$79af5610$ at arm dot com> <CAKOQZ8xSmAPN1b2QXn9OjPnf_j6BLXWhFQnSKhsRTu3VCMo67w at mail dot gmail dot com> <005901cf53a1$db5fea50$921fbef0$ at arm dot com> <CA+=Sn1mhmsP+zOLj5i-qXyz=Wv4hX7E5B2MoQdaFPog3W4wJGA at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Andrew Pinski <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Thomas Preud'homme
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> From: Ian Lance Taylor [mailto:email@example.com]
>>> I don't think anything uses __eprintf any more. The function has been
>>> left behind for very very very old systems. Actually we could
>>> probably remove it now. Probably the old support for not building
>>> __eprintf when --with-newlib was specified has bitrotted.
>> Removing it would be great. I'm working on a patch to automatically pull support
>> for floating point in printf/scanf and having eprintf in libgcc lead to such support
>> to be always pulled in since it calls printf and the format used is not a string litteral.
> I think your patch is broken since the object file (_eprintf.o) should
> not be pulled in unless it is used and it is part of an archive and
> for archives cause the linker to only bring in object files which have
> things referenced to them.
Also the comment in libgcc2.c is very clear of why it is still around:
/* __eprintf used to be used by GCC's private version of <assert.h>.
We no longer provide that header, but this routine remains in libgcc.a
for binary backward compatibility. Note that it is not included in
the shared version of libgcc. */
> Andrew Pinski
>> Should I propose a patch to remove it?
>> Best regards,