You don't need the -( -) here, FWIW. libgcc does not require
symbols
from
coreboot.a ;-)
Yes, actually it does. On powerpc libgcc uses external symbols
that it
does not provide.
Do you mean abort()?
Obviously.
Obvious to you perhaps, but not to me, that's why I asked :-)
Yeah, you need to provide that yourself, on all targets (nothing
special about PowerPC);
See, that's why the -( -) is there. :-)
Yes, sure, supposedly nothing else requires the object file where
abort()
is defined. I see.
I read the libgcc source code, and only powerpc's libgcc is calling
abort(). So while theoretically others may, they don't.
I think you read wrong then: every single target uses abort(). The
difference you are seeing could be that PowerPC uses it in the
trampoline
code?
I agree completely with you that gcc might change its behavior on
other
platforms, which is exactly why the -( -) construct is not only
used for
our powerpc port.
the same is true for memcpy(), memset(), memmove(), memcmp(). FWIW,
any GCC-compiled code can require those, not
only code in libgcc.
The -( -) construct is only needed for symbols used in libgcc,
Yes.
so
everything is fine. At the current point no mem* functions are used in
the libgcc functions we "use".
Even if we did, the construct would work for us without changes.
Yes.
Look, it just looked to me like some legacy thing that could use some
cleaning up. Obviously it still has value.
Segher
--
coreboot mailing list: [email protected]
http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
