This is the mail archive of the gcc@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]

Re: powerpc-linux: C++ looks completly broken


On Wednesday 21 February 2001 22:23, Geoff Keating wrote:
> Franz Sirl <Franz.Sirl-kernel@lauterbach.com> writes:
> > -LIB2FUNCS_EXTRA = eabi.S tramp.S
> > +LIB2FUNCS_EXTRA = tramp.S
>
> Aah, I see.  Yes, eabi.S should not be put in the shared library.  Or
> if it is, it should have a lot more weak symbols or something (but why
> bother, since eabi.S is _only_ used by the main application?).

Yeah, I suspected that it was only used by the main application, that's why I 
suggested in an earlier discussion 
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-02/msg00132.html on tthis list with Mark 
Mitchell:

 Well, I'm not really authorative for EABI issues, but as far I can parse
 the stuff in rs6000/eabi*.asm, nothing of that needs to end up in
 libgcc_s.so. So if that is true and we want to go with minimum changes, I
 would suggest to change rs6000/t-ppccomm to something like:
 
 LIB2FUNCS_EXTRA = tramp.S
 LIB2FUNCS_NON_SHARED_EXTRA = eabi.S
 
 and change gcc/Makefile.in to link
 LIB2FUNCS_EXTRA+LIB2FUNCS_NON_SHARED_EXTRA into libgcc.a and to only link
 LIB2FUNCS_EXTRA into libgcc_s.so. That would limit the impact to PPC for
 now and all other targets can continue as normal. That should make the
 regression tester happy again too.
 
 But if this is a plausible solution probably only the EABI experts like
 Geoff or Michael Meissner can tell.

But I guess now I'll just wait on what the other 2 shared libgcc discussions 
come up with :-).

Franz.


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