From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH ARM v8 3/4] mini-os: arm: build system
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 10:01:51 +0100
Message-ID: <1413968511.20604.54.camel@citrix.com>
References: <1412328051-20015-1-git-send-email-talex5@gmail.com>
	<1412328051-20015-4-git-send-email-talex5@gmail.com>
	<1413891867.23337.26.camel@citrix.com>
	<20141021215012.GI3481@type.youpi.perso.aquilenet.fr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>) id 1Xgro4-000677-DL
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 09:02:12 +0000
In-Reply-To: <20141021215012.GI3481@type.youpi.perso.aquilenet.fr>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@ens-lyon.org>
Cc: Thomas Leonard <talex5@gmail.com>, Dave.Scott@eu.citrix.com, anil@recoil.org, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Tue, 2014-10-21 at 23:50 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Ian Campbell, le Tue 21 Oct 2014 12:44:27 +0100, a =E9crit :
> > > +ifeq ($(XEN_TARGET_ARCH),arm32)
> > > +# Need libgcc.a for division helpers
> > =

> > Is this the __aeabi_* stuff?
> > =

> > Samuel, is this sort of thing OK in mini-os? Usually on the Xen/kernel
> > side we avoid libgcc.a and instead have our own copies of such helpers.
> > I don't recall why, I don't think it is licensing (libgcc has an
> > exception). Possibly just to give some control over what gets included?
> =

> IIRC we would tend to get additional things brought in, with special
> linker features and all kinds of things we don't want to have to
> support.  Since you never know what compiler would be used, it was saner
> to just provide an implementation.

So it sounds like we'd be better off finding a BSD licensed
implementation of the require __aeabi_* and including those in mini-os?

Ian.