[klibc] [klibc 07/31] i386 support for klibc
zippel at linux-m68k.org
Thu Jun 29 16:43:35 PDT 2006
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > > The i386 ones are a bit special... usually the reason I have added libgcc
> > > functions is that on some architectures, gcc has various problems linking
> > > with
> > > libgcc in some configurations.
> > If gcc has problems to link its own libgcc you really have a serious
> > problem...
> The way libgcc is handled inside gcc is, indeed, completely screwed up; even
> the gcc people admit that. They pretty much don't have a way to handle the
> effects of compiler options on libgcc, especially the ones that affect binary
Nobody said it's perfect. Especially the last point speaks against
multiple versions of the same library, as it makes it hard to mix
binaries/libraries. With a single kinit binary it's not really a problem
yet, but will it stay this way?
> > The standard libgcc may not be as small as you like, but it still should be
> > the first choice. If there is a problem with it, the gcc people do accept
> > patches.
> That's just an asinine statement. Under that logic we should just forget
> about the kernel and go hack the gcc bugs du jour; we certainly have enough
> workarounds for gcc bugs in the kernel.
Sorry, but I can't follow this logic.
More information about the klibc