On Wednesday 15 July 2009 19:03:36 Scott Wood wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Wednesday 15 July 2009 18:18:20 Scott Wood wrote: > >> 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, > > Has it been? > > > you suggest we keep adding stubs for it ? seems like a never ending > > losing battle where we get screwed. > > I don't see any slippery slope here, just a handful of functions that > any reasonable freestanding implementation is going to want (memcpy, > etc) and some way of getting an error out (raise/abort). > > If it starts wanting libc functions that aren't reasonable, then of > course we should complain (possibly with patches, for those willing to > deal with the copyright assignment process).
i think calling raise/abort is already unreasonable for bare metal applications. -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
