Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Wednesday 15 July 2009 18:18:20 Scott Wood wrote: >> It seems pretty reasonable for U-Boot to provide functions like >> raise()/abort() that take the place of a hardware exception, and display >> an error message. > > i disagree here. how much of the C library are you proposing we implement ? > if libgcc keeps calling more and more functions,
Has it been? > you suggest we keep adding stubs for it ? seems like a never ending losing > battle where we get screwed. I don't see any slippery slope here, just a handful of functions that any reasonable freestanding implementation is going to want (memcpy, etc) and some way of getting an error out (raise/abort). If it starts wanting libc functions that aren't reasonable, then of course we should complain (possibly with patches, for those willing to deal with the copyright assignment process). -Scott _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
