Hi Mike, On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Mike Frysinger <vap...@gentoo.org> 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, unimplemented libgcc functions will >> >> result in link errors, so using an unimplemented libgcc will be obvious >> >> at build time - It may lead to a posting on the mailing list, but at >> >> least we won't have latent libgcc related bugs in-the-wild. >> > >> > perhaps x86 should be setting PLATFORM_LIBGCC to nothing all the time. >> > the funcs Gabe wants to wrap are 64bit operations. u-boot should not be >> > doing 64- bit operations. that's why we have do_div(). >> >> Remember that there was a lot of discussion regarding the timer API that >> pointed towards using 64-bit counters for all arches. We cannot take it >> as gospel that 64-bit operations will never be used in U-Boot. Some people >> may have a need for this as part of hardware init. > > Linux has no problem doing 64bit timers without 64bit mul/div. i don't see > how u-boot could possibly be more special than Linux.
A few questions (I am unfamiliar with the Linux build environment): a) Does Linux link to libgcc b) Does Linux use regparm c) If a & b are both yes, does Linux use wrappers for libgcc functions Regards, Graeme _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
