RE: Implementation of ARM EABI library requirements?

["Schwarz, Konrad" <konrad dot schwarz at siemens dot com>]

> > The tricky bit (assuming that the compiler ABIs are already 
> lined up) is
> > that the C libraries may use different values for constants (e.g.,
> > LC_COLLATE) and different implementations for macros (e.g., 
> stdin and
> > <ctype.h>).  These issues are resolved via indirection: LC_COLLATE
> > becomes a link-time constant, rather than a header-file 
> constant, for
> > example.  (That's not technically ISO C conformant, but most
> > applications don't care.)

Just out of interest: how much practical interest is there in these
extensions?

Using link-time constants entails that it is no longer possible to
initialize constant data with non-trivial expressions containing such
constants -- trivial being the usual constant + base supported by
relocating linkers, right?

The entire problem goes away if the supplier of binary components
compiles his code with his compiler, but using the target tool-chain's
header files (with suitably protected tool-chain-specific extensions,
possibly extended by the local compiler's extensions), right?

Regards,

Konrad Schwarz