This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [arm] Use EABI unwind library
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- Cc: Paul Brook <paul at codesourcery dot com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:47:10 -0700
- Subject: Re: [arm] Use EABI unwind library
- Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
- References: <200409220346.19550.paul@codesourcery.com> <4150EE1D.8050807@codesourcery.com> <1097589207.23033.34.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com>
Richard Earnshaw wrote:
I'm pretty uncomfortable with putting this on the mainline. I know that
we need this for full EABI compatibility in 4.0 -- but I think this is
not Stage 3 material, due to the changes to gcc/except.c and the V3
bits, even though I see that those are pretty minimal. Let's queue this
for 4.1. (Our internal Wiki has a list of ARM patches queued for 4.1 --
presently empty.) If Richard E. wants to lobby for this in 4.0 after he
comes back from vacation, he can try to convince Richard Henderson (EH)
and Benjamin Koznik (V3); I'd feel differently if those folks wanted to
go ahead with this patch as well, but I feel tremendously uncomfortable
approving this directly.
The problem with this is that without this code the C++ compiler is so
fundamentally non-compliant that we might as well disable building of
G++ entirely. And that means we'd have to wait nearly another year[1]
before we had an FSF release that was compliant.
I think that, then, you should try to convince Richard Henderson and
Benjamin Koznik that these changes are valuable. If it is OK with them,
I would be OK with it, but I do not want to push changes into subsytems
that I do not maintain in a way that could be perceived as a favor for a
CodeSourcery customer. I'd also be open to a conditional compilation
solution; if Richard H. feels uncomfortable with the EH changes, maybe
he'd be happier with them #ifdef'd.
I think the worst case is that we create csl-arm-4_0-branch, which
differs from the 4_0-branch only by this patch.
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
(916) 791-8304
mark@codesourcery.com