2015-07-02 21:18 GMT+09:00 Masahiro Yamada <[email protected]>: > 2015-07-02 8:39 GMT+09:00 Daniel Schwierzeck <[email protected]>: >> >> >> Am 02.07.2015 um 00:04 schrieb Albert ARIBAUD: >>> Hello Wolfgang, >>> >>> On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 23:50:17 +0200, Wolfgang Denk <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Actually I think it is inherently wrong to enable >>>> CONFIG_USE_PRIVATE_LIBGCC by default. >>>> >>>> This option is intended as a workaround for broken toolchains, until >>>> these get fixed. By enabling this by default, we miss do not notice >>>> the problems our tool chain has, and therefore these never get fixed, >>>> i. e. brokenness grows. This cannot be good. >>>> >>>> CONFIG_USE_PRIVATE_LIBGCC should only be an emergency-opt-in, but >>>> never ever a default setting. >>> >>> Well then, should we not revisit commits c3dd823 and 7bfd5ee, which >>> enable CONFIG_USE_PRIVATE_LIBGCC for sh and mips respectively? Either >>> we allow it by default for all architectures, or we forbid it by >>> default for all architectures, but I don't like the idea of a >>> heterogeneous per-arch default setting. >>> >> >> CONFIG_USE_PRIVATE_LIBGCC should be removed. If an architecture supports >> a private libgcc, then it should always use it. I think for U-Boot it is >> better and safer to have all code under control instead of pulling in >> external code from toolchains which are often somehow broken. >> >> Speaking for MIPS we have boards with all combinations of Big >> Endian/Little Endian and Hard Float/Soft Float. You need an own libgcc >> binary for each FPU variant, but almost no toolchain supports this. Thus >> you need different toolchains for different boards. This is a PITA for >> users or developers who want to use buildman. Always using >> CONFIG_USE_PRIVATE_LIBGCC=yes was the only painless way so far. That is >> why we chose to enable CONFIG_USE_PRIVATE_LIBGCC by default. >> >> BTW: Linux kernel or Barebox always use a private libgcc. >> > > > I agree with Daniel. > > Instead of removing CONFIG_USE_PRIVATE_LIBGCC, > I think it is better to "select" it by Kconfig. > > (And rename it to CONFIG_HAVE_PRIVATE_LIBGCC > in order to clearly indicate it is not a user-configurable > but forced configuration.)
My bad. Daniel, you are right. We already have CONFIG_HAVE_PRIVATE_LIBGCC. So, removing CONFIG_USE_PRIVATE_LIBGCC is OK. -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
