PATCH: ARM BPABI library routines

[Richard Henderson]

On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 01:04:52PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> For example, any call to __addsi3 would be an error, and there's 
> no reason that either the GNUish or the ABIish library should have it.   

*shrug* I suppose, but we've never ever run into this before
on other targets.  I mean, __addsi3 doesn't exist in libgcc
for x86, and yet we never get link errors.

Personally I think you're worrying too much.  These core
arithmetic routines are provided by "libgcc1"-type sources,
which are *not* generic.  If you don't provide them, then
you don't have to worry about things silently being bound
to libgcc_s.so -- instead you'll get link errors during testing
and fix the md file appropriately.

> Would you still object if the target macro just controlled the 
> arithmetic functions, but did not apply to __clz, __popcount, etc.?

Yes.  If you're going to go this route, then you should go 
all the way and have all targets control exactly the entries
that should be filled in, since almost all targets don't use
libgcc1 routines.



r~