Hi Gabe,
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Graeme Russ wrote:
> Hi Gabe,
>
> Can you please try this patch - If it solves your libgcc problem, I will
> add it to the misc cleanup patch
>
> Thanks,
>
> Graeme
> ---
> arch/x86/config.mk | 3 ---
> arch/x86/cpu/interrupts.c | 2 +-
> arc
On 11/10/2011 07:55 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 10 November 2011 20:51:47 Graeme Russ wrote:
>> A few questions (I am unfamiliar with the Linux build environment):
>>
>> a) Does Linux link to libgcc
>
> no Linux port uses libgcc. they've always done the equivalent of
> PRIVATE_LIBGC
On Friday 11 November 2011 00:16:47 Graeme Russ wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > i can't think of any calls off the top of my head which would result in
> > invoking a func in libgcc.a.
>
> Any function listed here:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Libgc
Hi Mike,
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 10 November 2011 23:49:07 Graeme Russ wrote:
>> Remember, U-Boot uses --no-builtin, so apart from the libgcc functions,
>> there are no gcc functions included.
>
> i don't think that's generally how gcc builtin's work.
On Thursday 10 November 2011 23:49:07 Graeme Russ wrote:
> Remember, U-Boot uses --no-builtin, so apart from the libgcc functions,
> there are no gcc functions included.
i don't think that's generally how gcc builtin's work. for the vast majority,
they're of the "optimize away with simple insns
Hi Gabe,
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Gabe Black wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Graeme Russ wrote:
>>
>> Hi Gabe,
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Gabe Black wrote:
>> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Graeme Russ
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi Mike,
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, N
On Thursday 10 November 2011 20:59:46 Graeme Russ wrote:
> Well I think we have an answer - use PRIVATE_LIBGCC but do not implement
> any libgcc functions and treat link errors as coding errors. If for some
> bizarre reason we need to really, truly, honestly use a 64-bit libgcc
> function, we'll po
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Graeme Russ wrote:
> Hi Gabe,
>
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Gabe Black wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Graeme Russ
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Mike,
> >>
> >> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Mike Frysinger
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Thursday 10 Novemb
Hi Gabe,
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Gabe Black wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Graeme Russ wrote:
>>
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Mike Frysinger
>> wrote:
>> > On Thursday 10 November 2011 20:51:47 Graeme Russ wrote:
>> >> A few questions (I am unfamiliar
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Graeme Russ wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Mike Frysinger
> wrote:
> > On Thursday 10 November 2011 20:51:47 Graeme Russ wrote:
> >> A few questions (I am unfamiliar with the Linux build environment):
> >>
> >> a) Does Linux link to libg
Hi Mike,
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 10 November 2011 20:51:47 Graeme Russ wrote:
>> A few questions (I am unfamiliar with the Linux build environment):
>>
>> a) Does Linux link to libgcc
>
> no Linux port uses libgcc. they've always done the equivalent
On Thursday 10 November 2011 20:51:47 Graeme Russ wrote:
> A few questions (I am unfamiliar with the Linux build environment):
>
> a) Does Linux link to libgcc
no Linux port uses libgcc. they've always done the equivalent of
PRIVATE_LIBGCC. but in the case of x86, i can't see them providing a
Hi Mike,
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 10 November 2011 20:23:49 Graeme Russ wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > On Thursday 10 November 2011 17:53:06 Graeme Russ wrote:
>> >> Now if we use USE_PRIVATE_LIBGCC, unimplemente
On Thursday 10 November 2011 20:23:49 Graeme Russ wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Thursday 10 November 2011 17:53:06 Graeme Russ wrote:
> >> Now if we use USE_PRIVATE_LIBGCC, unimplemented libgcc functions will
> >> result in link errors, so using an unimplem
Hi Mike,
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 10 November 2011 17:53:06 Graeme Russ wrote:
>> The biggest con with wrappers is that the proposed patch only wraps four
>> functions. arch/arm/lib/ has private libgcc implementations for eight
>> libgcc functions - I
On Thursday 10 November 2011 17:53:06 Graeme Russ wrote:
> The biggest con with wrappers is that the proposed patch only wraps four
> functions. arch/arm/lib/ has private libgcc implementations for eight
> libgcc functions - I can only assume they are used somewhere.
i don't think you can look acr
Hi Mike,
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 4:15 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 November 2011 23:22:34 Graeme Russ wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > i was referring also to throwing away -mregparm=3 ...
>>
>> Yes, it does effect the code - It makes it ABI com
On Wednesday 09 November 2011 23:22:34 Graeme Russ wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > i was referring also to throwing away -mregparm=3 ...
>
> Yes, it does effect the code - It makes it ABI compliant like everyone
> else (except ARM) :) I expect a code size increa
Hi Mike,
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Graeme Russ wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> On Wednesday 09 November 2011 16:42:51 Graeme Russ wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 4:12 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> > On Wednesday 09 November 2011 05:32:59
Hi Mike,
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 November 2011 16:42:51 Graeme Russ wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 4:12 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > On Wednesday 09 November 2011 05:32:59 Graeme Russ wrote:
>> >> --- a/arch/x86/config.mk
>> >> +++ b/arch/x86/
On Wednesday 09 November 2011 16:42:51 Graeme Russ wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 4:12 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wednesday 09 November 2011 05:32:59 Graeme Russ wrote:
> >> --- a/arch/x86/config.mk
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/config.mk
> >>
> >> -PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += -mregparm=3
> >> -PLATFORM_CP
Hi Mike,
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 4:12 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 November 2011 05:32:59 Graeme Russ wrote:
>> --- a/arch/x86/config.mk
>> +++ b/arch/x86/config.mk
>>
>> -PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += -mregparm=3
>> -PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += -fomit-frame-pointer
>
> this sounds like you're thr
On Wednesday 09 November 2011 05:32:59 Graeme Russ wrote:
> --- a/arch/x86/config.mk
> +++ b/arch/x86/config.mk
>
> -PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += -mregparm=3
> -PLATFORM_CPPFLAGS += -fomit-frame-pointer
this sounds like you're throwing the baby out with the bath water. doesn't
this severely affect the
Hi Gabe,
Can you please try this patch - If it solves your libgcc problem, I will
add it to the misc cleanup patch
Thanks,
Graeme
---
arch/x86/config.mk|3 ---
arch/x86/cpu/interrupts.c |2 +-
arch/x86/cpu/start.S |5 ++---
3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 7 deletions(
24 matches
Mail list logo
