On Wed, 17 Jan 2007, Andrew Haley wrote: | Gabriel Dos Reis writes: | > On Wed, 17 Jan 2007, Andrew Haley wrote: | > | > [...] | > | > | > | "To a man with a hammer, all things look like a nail." It's very | > | > | tempting for us in gcc-land always to fix things in gcc, not because | > | > | it's technically the right place but because it's what we control | > | > | ourselves. | > | > | > | > well, I'm unclear what your point is here, but certainly GCC is | > | > at fault for generating trapping instructions. | > | > So, we fix the problem in GCC, not because that is what we control | > | > ourselves, but we we failed to generate proper code. | > | | > | It's not a matter of whose fault it is; trying to apportion blame | > | makes no sense. | > | > we have a communication problem here. Nobody is trying to apportion | > blame. However, gcc is the tool that generates trapping instruction. | > It is unclear why it would be the responsability of the OS or libc | > to fix what GCC has generated in the first place. | | That makes no sense either. | | It's an engineering problem. We have a widget that does the wrong | thing*. We have several ways to make it do the right thing, only one | of which has no adverse impact on the existing users of the widget.
You believe there is one solution, except that it does not work for the supported target. But, I suppose that does not matter since you have decided that anything else does not make sense. -- Gaby
