This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] RTEMS: Add GCC Runtime Library Exception


On 07/24/2017 12:03 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> gcc/
> 
> 	PR libgcc/61152
> 	* aarch64/rtems.h: Add GCC Runtime Library Exception.  Format
> 	changes.
> 	* arm/rtems.h: Likewise.
> 	* bfin/rtems.h: Likewise.
> 	* i386/rtemself.h: Likewise.
> 	* lm32/rtems.h: Likewise.
> 	* m32c/rtems.h: Likewise.
> 	* m68k/rtemself.h: Likewise.
> 	* microblaze/rtems.h: Likewise.
> 	* mips/rtems.h: Likewise.
> 	* moxie/rtems.h: Likewise.
> 	* nios2/rtems.h: Likewise.
> 	* powerpcspe/rtems.h: Likewise.
> 	* rs6000/rtems.h: Likewise.
> 	* rtems.h: Likewise.
> 	* sh/rtems.h: Likewise.
> 	* sh/rtemself.h: Likewise.
> 	* sparc/rtemself.h: Likewise.
This seems horribly wrong.  Did anyone ack this change?  I'm fully
supportive of target maintainers taking care of their areas, but
licensing stuff probably should get explicitly ack'd.

I just reviewed all the rtems config files and I don't see anything in
any of them that deserves a runtime exception with the possible
exception of rs6000/rtems.h.

Seriously.  Redefining the CPP builtins?  LINK_SPEC?  #undefs?   Those
are not things we should be granting an exception for.

The one that looks marginal to me would be rs6000/rtems.h and its
definition of CRT_CALL_STATIC_FUNCTION.

Jeff


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]