From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Wood Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:03:36 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2 v6] Make libgcc inclusion from common Makefile overridable by platform config file In-Reply-To: <200907151843.28595.vapier@gentoo.org> References: <1247081808-31514-1-git-send-email-plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> <200907130525.36976.vapier@gentoo.org> <20090715221820.GA16203@b07421-ec1.am.freescale.net> <200907151843.28595.vapier@gentoo.org> Message-ID: <4A5E6048.7010203@freescale.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de 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