Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 7 Sep 2006 12:25:54 +0200 (CEST) | From | Roman Zippel <> | Subject | Re: [2.6 patch] re-add -ffreestanding |
| |
Hi,
On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > > Define "full libc". > > > > > > Everything described in clause 7 of ISO/IEC 9899:1999. > > > > Its behaviour is also defined by the environment, so what gcc can assume > > is rather limited and you have not shown a single example, that any such > > assumption would be invalid for the kernel. > > ISO/IEC 9899:1999 clause 7 defines the libc part of a hosted environment.
Which is a problem for the kernel exactly how? BTW the standard specifies the minimum requirements for a libc, so talking about "full libc" is ambiguous at best.
> > The kernel uses standard C, so your point is? > > A standard C freestanding environment or a standard C hosted environment?
As far as gcc is concerned it's a hosted environment, where we provide only what we actually use, but anything we do provide is compliant.
> > You already got two NACKs from arch maintainers, why the hell are you > > still pushing this patch? The builtin functions are useful and you want to > > The same people who justified removing -ffreestanding with the "it was > only added for x86-64, so dropping it should be safe" that has proven > wrong now put their arch maintainers hats on for NACKing reverting this > patch...
And you keep ignoring there might be better solutions...
> > force arch maintainers to have to enable every single one manually and > > to maintain a list of these functions over multiple versions of gcc? > > It could be done per architecture or globally for some functions. > > And it doesn't sound like a bad idea to check the current code and think > of what it does and what it should do - many architecture specific > things (like much of include/asm-i386/string.h) seem to be more > historically than architecture specific.
We're happy to hear about it, once you've done this.
bye, Roman - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |