On Wednesday 15 July 2009 18:18:20 Scott Wood wrote: > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 05:25:35AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Sunday 12 July 2009 14:29:46 Wolfgang Denk wrote: > > > You mean it is impossible to build a tool chain for ARM that can be > > > used to build U-Boot, Linux, and user space code? I can't believe > > > that ARM support in GCC is that seriously broken. > > > > basically, that is correct. arm's libgcc is just that whacky because of > > all the different ABIs that exist. although citing the Linux kernel here > > may not be appropriate because they specifically avoid libgcc -- because > > it's so screwed up. > > Isn't that what multilib is for?
yes, but Jean is attempting to deal with reality of arm toolchains rather than telling users to go install one that isnt broken > > last i looked, some of the math functions in arm's libgcc depended on C > > library functions (like raise() and abort()). this is the kind of stuff > > Jean is trying to avoid. > > It seems pretty reasonable for U-Boot to provide functions like > raise()/abort() that take the place of a hardware exception, and display > an error message. i disagree here. how much of the C library are you proposing we implement ? if libgcc keeps calling more and more functions, you suggest we keep adding stubs for it ? seems like a never ending losing battle where we get screwed. (well, *i'm* not getting screwed because i dont care about u-boot on arm ;]) -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
