[ccying Ramana] On 20 October 2016 at 18:34, Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 20/10/16 09:26 -0700, Mike Stump wrote: >> >> On Oct 20, 2016, at 5:20 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> I am considering leaving this in the ARM backend to force people to >>> think what they want to do about thread safety with statics and C++ >>> on bare-metal systems. > > > The quoting makes it look like those are my words, but I was quoting > Ramana from https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-05/msg02751.html > >> Not quite in the GNU spirit? The port people should decide the best way >> to get as much functionality as possible and everything should just work, no >> sharp edges. >> >> Forcing people to think sounds like a sharp edge? > > > I'm inclined to agree, but we are talking about bare metal systems, > where there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Choosing something that > makes most of the library unusable will upset one group of people, and > choosing something that adds overhead that could be avoided will upset > another group. > > Either way, I don't think disabling 50% of the testsuite is the > answer. If you don't like the failures, configure the library to build > without threadsafe statics, or configure it to depend on libatomic, or > something else. (We might want new --enable-xxx switches to simplify > doing that). >
So if we say that the current behaviour has to keep being the default, so that users think about what they are really doing, I can certainly patch my validation scripts to add a configure flag for this particular configuration. Is arm-none-eabi the only target having this problem? Thanks, Christophe
