From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dirk Behme Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 09:18:17 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] Missing __udivdi3 for ARM In-Reply-To: <20090801200127.B87B3832E416@gemini.denx.de> References: <17434f2e0907311440v2909bf46w74877af175f493e6@mail.gmail.com> <20090801132619.GA19785@game.jcrosoft.org> <20090801144004.0CB29832E416@gemini.denx.de> <17434f2e0908011243y666d2d40if6fdfd8a5c00c7c5@mail.gmail.com> <20090801200127.B87B3832E416@gemini.denx.de> Message-ID: <4A753DB9.6080508@googlemail.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Dear Wolfgang, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear "J.C. Wren", > > In message <17434f2e0908011243y666d2d40if6fdfd8a5c00c7c5@mail.gmail.com> you wrote: >> I thought the idea was to move u-boot away from libgcc dependencies. Or did >> I misread that? I know that a previous problem I commented on was solved by >> adding a __xxxxx.S function the u-boot library. > > In a perfect world the GCC provided libgcc.a would be "just working" > and we did not have to bother about all that. > > But libgcc.a fo ARM is obviously not perfect, and causes problems. So > Jean-Christophe suggested to use the alternative implementation he > wanted to copy from the Linux code - which again is supposed to allow > to use the code in question without changes. Just to get an idea what has to be done for this: Do we talk about http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2009-June/054627.html without the changes to top level Makefile arm_config.mk ? That is, updating that patch and removing the Makefile and arm_config.mk changes would be what we want? Best regards Dirk