This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: uClibc support patch
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org, Paul Brook <paul at codesourcery dot com>, Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>, Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 22:43:08 +0000 (UTC)
- Subject: Re: uClibc support patch
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0602101816590.29089@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <43F0EF71.1010609@codesourcery.com>
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
wouldn't be very meaningful so I chose the route of having -muclibc and
-mglibc which allow for someone to add -mnewlib in future. I'll make a
followup patch reject combinations of -muclibc with -mglibc.
--
Joseph S. Myers http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/
jsm@polyomino.org.uk (personal mail)
joseph@codesourcery.com (CodeSourcery mail)
jsm28@gcc.gnu.org (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)