Re: uClibc support patch

["H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>]

On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:43:08PM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> 
> > It does look to me as though specifying both -muclibc and -mglibc may do
> > the wrong thing.  For example, in a compiler configured for GLIBC,
> > saying "-muclibc -mglibc" looks as though it will use uClibc, based on
> > the CHOOSE_DYNAMIC_LINKER spec, even though I think people would expect
> > that to use GLIBC.  I don't know of any way (purely in specs, as opposed
> > to override_options) to take ordering into account.  I think it would be
> > better to issue an error if both are specified, which can be done in
> > specs.  If you concur, would you please post a follow-up patch to do that?
> 
> Indeed, specs have special handling for -mfoo -mno-foo pairs but otherwise 
> are incapable of getting such combinations right in general.  But since 
> there are more than two possible C libraries on GNU/Linux, -mno-uclibc 

I thought someone was working on newlib for Linux/i386.


H.J.