From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] re-add -ffreestanding
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 00:58:37 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060821225837.GT11651@stusta.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060822002728.c023bf85.ak@suse.de>
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 12:27:28AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > It disables the automatic usage of builtins which is OK.
>
> No, it's not ok -- it is the problem. We want to use the builtins.
Without -ffreestanding, the compiler is completely free to decide
whether to use a builtin or whether to not use it - and which other C
library functions to use.
Your commit 6edfba1b33c701108717f4e036320fc39abe1912 that claimed
"it was only added for x86-64, so dropping it should be safe" was not
safe, it had broken at least mips and m68k. This wrong justification
alone should warrant a revert of this commit.
What's the problem with adding -ffreestanding and stating explicitely
which functions we want to be handled be builtins, and which functions
we don't want to be handled by builtins?
This looks like the right way to go instead of breaking other
architectures here and there.
> -Andi
cu
Adrian
--
Gentoo kernels are 42 times more popular than SUSE kernels among
KLive users (a service by SUSE contractor Andrea Arcangeli that
gathers data about kernels from many users worldwide).
There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.
Benjamin Disraeli
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-08-21 22:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-08-21 21:21 [2.6 patch] re-add -ffreestanding Adrian Bunk
2006-08-21 21:24 ` Andi Kleen
2006-08-21 21:46 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-08-21 22:09 ` Andi Kleen
2006-08-21 22:24 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-08-21 22:27 ` Andi Kleen
2006-08-21 22:58 ` Adrian Bunk [this message]
2006-08-21 23:13 ` Andi Kleen
2006-08-22 3:37 ` Kyle Moffett
2006-08-22 10:37 ` Andi Kleen
2006-08-22 11:18 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-08-21 23:33 ` Roman Zippel
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-08-30 17:57 Adrian Bunk
2006-08-30 18:13 ` Andi Kleen
2006-08-30 18:39 ` Russell King
2006-09-06 22:37 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-09-06 23:38 ` Roman Zippel
2006-09-06 23:50 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-09-07 0:05 ` Roman Zippel
2006-09-07 0:37 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-09-07 0:47 ` Roman Zippel
2006-09-07 1:02 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-09-07 1:23 ` Roman Zippel
2006-09-07 2:23 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-09-07 10:25 ` Roman Zippel
2006-09-07 6:30 ` Russell King
2006-09-07 10:27 ` Adrian Bunk
2006-09-07 11:40 ` Roman Zippel
2006-09-07 11:43 ` Russell King
2006-09-07 14:03 ` Kyle Moffett
2006-09-07 14:25 ` Russell King
2006-09-07 14:29 ` Roman Zippel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20060821225837.GT11651@stusta.de \
--to=bunk@stusta.de \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=zippel@linux-m68k.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox