inhibit_libc definition patch

[Eric Christopher]

Michael Sokolov wrote:
> > If you are, for instance, building self-contained ROM firmware or
> > operating system kernels, which want libgcc but which have no need for
> > the 'normal' system headers or libraries, you're then out of luck.
> 
> That's exactly what I was going to say! What if I don't have any headers at
> all? I'm using gcc primarily for embedded targets like m68k-coff, m68k-elf, and
> similar for other CPUs, where I don't have any kernel, any libc, or anything
> else to have "system" headers for. I thought that supporting embedded targets
> was one of gcc's requirements...
> 

This does work.  The idea behind inhibit_libc is that it stops the
definition of certain functions in libgcc that would be around for a
hosted system.  Now, I dont' think it works correctly right now (hence
my patch), but afaict embedded systems work just fine.

-eric