Re: Ping/Repost (Updated 20120127): RFA: Add Epiphany newlib & libgloss port

[Joern Rennecke <amylaar at spamcop dot net>]

Quoting Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn@redhat.com>:

> Can you explain why you didn't move sbrk.c from libc/sys/epiphany into
> libgloss with the rest of the syscalls which is recommended?

I was focusing on I/O (I realized there were two isatty definitions and
it was non-obbvious which one was used).

sbrk is more tied to linker scripts.  Still, I suppose it makes sense to
have it in libgloss, too.  I'll have to check that that won't cause any
issues for the customer, though.

>   Other
> than that, the changes look fine.

Does that mean the port submission is approved if I move sbrk to libgloss?

Or were you talking only about the incremental changes of the Epiphany port
as such?