Kumar Gala writes:
We'll hopefully this thread might spark either an explanation for why
we aren't just linking libgcc in a statement that says we should and
we can remove the code that implements libgcc functionality.
I've just reviewed the code in the 32-bit and 64-bit PowerPC versions
On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 09:21:08AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
GCC 4.4.x looks to be adding support for generating out-of-line register
saves/restores based on:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-04/msg01678.html
This breaks the kernel build as we'd have to link with libgcc to get the
On May 2, 2008, at 10:07 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 09:21:08AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
GCC 4.4.x looks to be adding support for generating out-of-line
register
saves/restores based on:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-04/msg01678.html
This breaks the kernel build
If someone using cutting edge toolchains for ppc64 could test and make
sure if we enable CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE things work that would be
nice.
Current linus tree + some more stuff + this patch, ppc64_defconfig,
powerpc64-linux-gcc (GCC) 4.4.0 20080429 (experimental), builds just
fine.
brokenrecord
Why don't we just link with libgcc?
/brokenrecord
Its something of a PITA to do that in the kernel at this point since
we've duplicated libgcc functionality in it. I'm sure there are some
historical reasons this wasn't done to start with.
That's the same as saying that it
On May 2, 2008, at 12:33 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
If someone using cutting edge toolchains for ppc64 could test and
make
sure if we enable CONFIG_CC_OPTIMIZE_FOR_SIZE things work that
would be
nice.
Current linus tree + some more stuff + this patch, ppc64_defconfig,
On May 2, 2008, at 12:34 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
brokenrecord
Why don't we just link with libgcc?
/brokenrecord
Its something of a PITA to do that in the kernel at this point
since we've duplicated libgcc functionality in it. I'm sure there
are some historical reasons this wasn't
Kumar Gala wrote:
On May 2, 2008, at 12:34 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
brokenrecord
Why don't we just link with libgcc?
/brokenrecord
Its something of a PITA to do that in the kernel at this point since
we've duplicated libgcc functionality in it. I'm sure there are some
historical
From: Kumar Gala [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 16:34:13 -0500
We'll hopefully this thread might spark either an explanation for why
we aren't just linking libgcc in a statement that says we should and
we can remove the code that implements libgcc functionality.
How would
David Miller wrote:
If you link in libgcc, all of a sudden you have a whole new class of
potential problems, don't do it.
All it takes is one of these libgcc libcalls the kernel actually
references, needing something else in libc, to make this exercise
futile.
What in libgcc references libc,
From: Scott Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 16:45:45 -0500
David Miller wrote:
If you link in libgcc, all of a sudden you have a whole new class of
potential problems, don't do it.
All it takes is one of these libgcc libcalls the kernel actually
references, needing
David Miller wrote:
The problem only occurs once you reference a function that references
libc stuff, and those guys are just lucky so far.
Yeah, lucky they don't need to reinvent the wheel every time the
GCC/libgcc interface changes. :-)
If GCC generates a call to a libgcc function that
From: Scott Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 17:16:07 -0500
If GCC generates a call to a libgcc function that calls a libc function,
I'd consider that a pretty serious bug, given that said libc function is
likely to consist of GCC-generated code, which could call the same
David Miller wrote:
From: Scott Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 17:16:07 -0500
If GCC generates a call to a libgcc function that calls a libc function,
I'd consider that a pretty serious bug, given that said libc function is
likely to consist of GCC-generated code, which could
From: Scott Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 17:38:21 -0500
David Miller wrote:
The kernel is a special environment. Therefore even if you start
linking with libgcc, it is inevitable that you will need some
changed local version for some of those routines in the kernel.
On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 16:34 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
On May 2, 2008, at 12:34 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
brokenrecord
Why don't we just link with libgcc?
/brokenrecord
Its something of a PITA to do that in the kernel at this point
since we've duplicated libgcc functionality in
On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 14:42 -0700, David Miller wrote:
From: Kumar Gala [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 16:34:13 -0500
We'll hopefully this thread might spark either an explanation for why
we aren't just linking libgcc in a statement that says we should and
we can remove the
What in libgcc references libc, and why isn't this a problem for
Linux/ARM, Linux/SH, U-boot, and the many other libc-less programs
that
use libgcc?
The problem only occurs once you reference a function that references
libc stuff, and those guys are just lucky so far.
The only calls to the
18 matches
Mail list logo
