This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.

Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.

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

Re: My proposal for the libgcc runtime ABI (ia64 gcc/glibc is broken.)

To: "Martin v. Loewis" <martin at loewis dot home dot cs dot tu-berlin dot de>
Subject: Re: My proposal for the libgcc runtime ABI (ia64 gcc/glibc is broken.)
From: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at valinux dot com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 14:36:25 -0700
Cc: drepper at cygnus dot com, law at cygnus dot com, kettenis at wins dot uva dot nl,rth at twiddle dot net, libc-hacker at sourceware dot cygnus dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
References: <5003.963333245@upchuck> <m31z10k1h6.fsf@otr.mynet.cygnus.com> <200007112126.XAA01019@loewis.home.cs.tu-berlin.de>

On Tue, Jul 11, 2000 at 11:26:57PM +0200, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> 
> > Besides, I have not heard a single convincing argument why libgcc.so
> > should be generate as part of gcc.  What do you want to achieve?
> 
> It is likely that gcc maintainers will add functions to libgcc as they
> please, and that the code generated by gcc will rely on these
> functions being inside libgcc. So how should gcc proceed on a system
> where these new functions are not present in the system libgcc?
> 

It has happened:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2000-07/msg00018.html

That is why we discuss libgcc.so here. 

-- 
H.J. Lu (hjl@gnu.org)

References:
- Re: My proposal for the libgcc runtime ABI (ia64 gcc/glibc is broken.)
  - From: Ulrich Drepper

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