This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Missing -fexception CFLAGS

From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: Marcus Shawcroft <marcus dot shawcroft at linaro dot org>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012 15:34:45 -0700
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Missing -fexception CFLAGS
References: <CABXK9nc_WThag8NdnndCRfMtotE43Faibxo2hNDU6bq37jOJGQ@mail.gmail.com><Pine.LNX.4.64.1211031819330.16168@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>

On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Joseph S. Myers
<joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Nov 2012, Marcus Shawcroft wrote:
>
>> I'd appreciate feedback on the sanity of this solution.
>
> It seems fine to me (with the ChangeLog entries fixed as noted) - does
> anyone else have any comments?
>

There is no problem on i386 and x86-64 with GCC 4.7 since
async unwind table is on by default.  Does  -fexception introduce
extra bytes on i386 and x86-64?  If yes, we should use
-fasynchronous-unwind-tables, at least for i386 and x86-64.


-- 
H.J.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] Missing -fexception CFLAGS
  - From: Joseph S. Myers

References:
- [PATCH] Missing -fexception CFLAGS
  - From: Marcus Shawcroft
- Re: [PATCH] Missing -fexception CFLAGS
  - From: Joseph S. Myers

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]