This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.

Note that libc-hacker is a closed list. You may look at the archives of this list, but subscription and posting are not open.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: My proposal for the libgcc runtime ABI (ia64 gcc/glibc is broken.)


On Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 03:34:40PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2000 at 11:44:52AM -0700, H . J . Lu wrote:
> > I don't think gcc should build libgcc.so at all. It should be the
> > part of glibc or any system C libraries which use libgcc.
> 
> I disagree entirely. 
> 
> I think libgcc should be its own thing and its own thing alone.

I agree libgcc.so should work with all gccs which conform to the
libgcc.so ABI.

> We need to get glibc out of the business of providing libgcc
> functions.  The best long-term way to do that, IMO, is once

glibc shouldn't provide any libgcc functions. However, glibc will
use some libgcc functions. That means libgcc.so has to be available
when libc.so is loaded. I only proprose to let glibc decide where to
put libgcc.so. gcc only provides a libgcc.a compiled with -fPIC and
maybe a script like build-libgcc.so which will build libgcc.so from
libgcc.a. Glibc will build libgcc.so from libgcc.a in gcc and install
it at an appropriate place.


-- 
H.J. Lu (hjl@gnu.org)

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]