From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dirk Behme Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:00:49 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2 v6] Make libgcc inclusion from common Makefile overridable by platform config file In-Reply-To: <200907130525.36976.vapier@gentoo.org> References: <1247081808-31514-1-git-send-email-plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> <20090712161700.GD21651@game.jcrosoft.org> <20090712182946.09A9F832E416@gemini.denx.de> <200907130525.36976.vapier@gentoo.org> Message-ID: <4A5B5A31.2060909@googlemail.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Sunday 12 July 2009 14:29:46 Wolfgang Denk wrote: >> Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: >>>> Right. And each of these is supposed to come with it's own version of >>>> libgcc, configured exactly for the requirements of this specific >>>> version and configuration of GCC. >>> the problem is that it's not really possible on arm >>> because you will need a toolchain for u-boot and an other for the >>> userland and in somecase an other for the kernel >> 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. > > 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. Yes, this is my understanding, too. Conclusion seems to be that we can get this feature/functionality if it is configurable using the way Wolfgang proposed in http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2009-July/056185.html Best regards Dirk