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: uClibc support patch


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)


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