This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [lsb-spec] Re: Standardizing _Unwind_* error handling interfaces found in libgcc_s.so
- From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa at zytor dot com>
- To: Jim Wilson <wilson at redhat dot com>
- Cc: George Kraft IV <gk4 at austin dot ibm dot com>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, "Wichmann, Mats D" <mats dot d dot wichmann at intel dot com>, lsb-spec at freestandards dot org, lsb-confcall at lists dot sourceforge dot net, mark at codesourcery dot com, oldham at codesourcery dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 15:29:10 -0700
- Subject: Re: [lsb-spec] Re: Standardizing _Unwind_* error handling interfaces found in libgcc_s.so
- Organization: Zytor Communications
- References: <39B5C4829263D411AA93009027AE9EBB1EF4521A@fmsmsx35.fm.intel.com> <xwuit0auh9i.fsf@tonopah.toronto.redhat.com> <xwud6qiue49.fsf@tonopah.toronto.redhat.com>
Jim Wilson wrote:
> I thought of another thing I should clarify.
>
> If you are documenting functions that might appear in a gcc compiled
> executable, then you want to mention all 13 functions.
>
> If you are documenting functions that are meant for application use, then
> you should only mention the first 10 functions I listed. These are the 10
> functions that are part of the IA-64 Unwind API.
>
> The other 3 functions that gcc added on top of the IA-64 Unwind API
> _Unwind_Find_FDE
> _Unwind_GetDataRelBase
> _Unwind_GetTextRelBase
> solve Unwind ABI library implementation details. They are not meant for
> application use. They are meant for use by other Unwind ABI libraries. Since
> gcc only really supports its own unwind ABI libraries at present, we don't
> always bother to provide working versions of these functions. Hence they are
> not safe for general application use. They are only safe if you know what you
> are doing.
>
LSB is about documenting the ABI, so they should be included unless an
application is required to link statically against this library.
-hpa