On 21 October 2013 15:05, Alp Toker <[email protected]> wrote: > On 21/10/2013 22:08, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 09:59:24PM +0100, Alp Toker wrote: > >> Here's a pure guess, not tested but whatever the implementation ends up > >> being it'll surely take less time than continuing the debate: > > The core of the issue is that LLVM can create calls to memset and memcpy > > itself, even under -ffreestanding. > > Ouch, I hadn't realised this. > > Maybe ignoring the flag more sense after all, at least until the > underlying issue affecting -ffreestanding is fixed. That's the elephant > in the room. >
That's not a bug in -ffreestanding. Even a freestanding implementation must provide memcpy (and I think, a couple other functions per the ABI) as well as things like __muldi2 if the hardware can't handle it. Nick
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
