Re: My proposal for the libgcc runtime ABI (ia64 gcc/glibc is broken.)

["Martin v. Loewis" <martin at loewis dot home dot cs dot tu-berlin dot de>]

> Everybody who just dismissed HJ's proposal should stop and think about
> this for a moment.  Will you be willing to do what I described inside
> gcc?

What I fail to see is why gcc can't ship with the mechanisms required
for a certain target. Some target expert has to know the required
mechanism, right. Why can't that specific expert put the mechanism
into gcc? In many cases, she'd have to convince gcc maintainers that
this is indeed a target problem, and that it is indeed a sane solution
to that problem - but if it is an obviously correct solution, the
patch will be accepted. 

Perhaps the target expert isn't too familiar with gcc sources. In that
case, she can get help on gcc@gcc.gnu.org.

> This certainly requires some more discussion and somebody with time to
> really think it through.  HJ already made a proposal so we need to
> investigate it.

If his proposal was to provide a -fPIC libgcc object file collection
which is transformed into a shared library during glibc installation -
that won't work. I don't think users will want to rebuild glibc as
part of gcc installation.

Also, I'd rather see the magic that glibc installation would do be
performed as part of gcc installation, instead of perhaps being a
glibc-provided script that has this magic.

Regards,
Martin