On 07/24/2017 12:03 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: > gcc/ > > PR libgcc/61152 > * aarch64/rtems.h: Add GCC Runtime Library Exception. Format > changes. > * arm/rtems.h: Likewise. > * bfin/rtems.h: Likewise. > * i386/rtemself.h: Likewise. > * lm32/rtems.h: Likewise. > * m32c/rtems.h: Likewise. > * m68k/rtemself.h: Likewise. > * microblaze/rtems.h: Likewise. > * mips/rtems.h: Likewise. > * moxie/rtems.h: Likewise. > * nios2/rtems.h: Likewise. > * powerpcspe/rtems.h: Likewise. > * rs6000/rtems.h: Likewise. > * rtems.h: Likewise. > * sh/rtems.h: Likewise. > * sh/rtemself.h: Likewise. > * sparc/rtemself.h: Likewise. This seems horribly wrong. Did anyone ack this change? I'm fully supportive of target maintainers taking care of their areas, but licensing stuff probably should get explicitly ack'd.
I just reviewed all the rtems config files and I don't see anything in any of them that deserves a runtime exception with the possible exception of rs6000/rtems.h. Seriously. Redefining the CPP builtins? LINK_SPEC? #undefs? Those are not things we should be granting an exception for. The one that looks marginal to me would be rs6000/rtems.h and its definition of CRT_CALL_STATIC_FUNCTION. Jeff
