[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2 V2] Move libgcc inclusion from common Makefile to platform configs files

[Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>]

On Saturday 20 June 2009 09:01:36 Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> On 08:57 Sat 20 Jun     , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Saturday 20 June 2009 07:30:41 Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> > > On 07:08 Sat 20 Jun     , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > On Saturday 20 June 2009 06:40:07 Jean-Christophe wrote:
> > > > > On 06:18 Sat 20 Jun     , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday 20 June 2009 05:33:26 Jean-Christophe wrote:
> > > > > > > This patch moves the libgcc Makefile inclusion from the
> > > > > > > toplevel Makefile to the arch_config.mk files. This is in
> > > > > > > preparation for the ARM architecture to move away from
> > > > > > > including libgcc function and only using self-contained U-Boot
> > > > > > > functions as done in Linux.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > why not change the top level Makefile to read:
> > > > > > PLATFORM_LIBGCC ?= ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > then any board/arch that doesnt want it can simply do:
> > > > > > PLATFORM_LIBGCC = # dont want it
> > > > >
> > > > > because you need to provide the equivalent functions for standalone
> > > > > application and api and U-Boot ofcourse
> > > >
> > > > so move it to config.mk.  this doesnt change the important point:
> > > > leave PLATFORM_LIBGCC default in the toplevel common files.  what i
> > > > proposed doesnt limit what you want to do with arm in any way.
> > >
> > > I think it's better to let it at arch level and force any new arch
> > > adding to manage it instead provide a default one
> >
> > considering most arches want this code, i dont think so.  you're
> > proposing we duplicate the same common code in all arches to support one
> > deviating arch -- arm.  the defaults should reflect the common state
> > while the deviating ones change the behavior as they like.
>
> This is where I disagree other arch as mips and other will also need to
> move away from the needs to include libgcc to be really toolchain
> independant
>
> I do think it's really important for U-Boot be able to have full control to
> have a functions embedded into.
>
> So stop to have libgcc include by default will really reflect it

so you have two arches (mips/arm) that you dont want to use libgcc.  that is 
still vastly the minority.  if we ever do get most ports not using libgcc, 
then pushing it to the arch configs makes sense.  but we havent and we arent 
even close.

how you want to manage libgcc dependency is your prerogative ... it doesnt 
mean you should be forcing other people to follow suit.
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20090620/690c779d/attachment.pgp