On Tue, 10 Jan 2023, Adhemerval Zanella Netto via Gcc-patches wrote: > That's my original intention [1], but Joseph stated that GCC is the upstream > source of this file. Joseph, would you be ok for a similar patch to glibc > since gcc is reluctant to accept it?
I don't think it's a good idea for the copies to diverge. I also think the file is more heavily used in GCC (as part of the libgcc sources, effectively) than in glibc and so it's best to use GCC as the upstream for this shared file. Ideally maybe most of the macros in this file would be replaced by built-in functions (that are guaranteed to expand inline rather than possibly circularly calling a libgcc function defined using the same macro), so that the inline asm could be avoided (when building libgcc, or when building glibc with a new-enough compiler). But that would be a substantial project. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
