On Oct 20, 2016, at 9:34 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com> wrote:
On 20/10/16 09:26 -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
On Oct 20, 2016, at 5:20 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com> wrote:
I am considering leaving this in the ARM backend to force people to
think what they want to do about thread safety with statics and C++
on bare-metal systems.
The quoting makes it look like those are my words, but I was quoting
Ramana from https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-05/msg02751.html
Not quite in the GNU spirit? The port people should decide the best way
to get as much functionality as possible and everything should just work, no
sharp edges.
Forcing people to think sounds like a sharp edge?
I'm inclined to agree, but we are talking about bare metal systems,
So? gcc has been doing bare metal systems for more than 2 years now. It
is pretty good at it. All my primary targets today are themselves bare
metal systems (I test with newlib).
where there is no one-size-fits-all solution.
Configurations are like ice cream cones. Everyone gets their flavor no
matter how weird or strange. Putting nails in a cone because you don't know
if they like vanilla or chocolate isn't reasonable. If you want, make two
flavors, and vend two, if you want to just do one, pick the flavor and vend
it. Put an enum #define default_flavor vanilla, and you then have support
for any flavor you want. Want to add a configure option for the flavor
select, add it. You want to make a -mflavor=chocolate option, add it. gcc
is literally littered with these things.