On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Mike Frysinger <vap...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Tuesday 08 November 2011 18:14:46 Graeme Russ wrote: >> Ah, yes you have - Can you give me a list? I think to be pragmatic we >> should either wrap the all or go down the private libgcc path like ARM has >> done. Private lib functions would elliminate the overhead, but is this >> really such a problem anyway? > > it then becomes a sync issue ... updates to gcc's libgcc aren't reflected in > u- > boot automatically ...
Are those updates needed? We already have a fair chunk of libc which is not automatically sync'd and going by what is in arch/arm/lib, there are very few libgcc functions (far less than libc) and each of those are relatively trivial and unlikely to require updating. Also, I already know of issues compiling U-Boot on an x64 OS because of the 32/64 bit incompatibility of libgcc. I never encountered this because I only have a 32-bit build machine So the handful of libgcc functions are starting to become a disproportionate headache Regards, Graeme _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
