This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the newlib project.
Re: Request: WEAK declaration of _sbrk() for embedded
- From: Joey Ye <joey dot ye dot cc at gmail dot com>
- To: A dot Grieco at erhardt-leimer dot com
- Cc: newlib at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 17:32:23 +0800
- Subject: Re: Request: WEAK declaration of _sbrk() for embedded
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <OF2DE092BE dot E155D4DA-ONC1257C38 dot 004886B1-C1257C38 dot 0048E2C4 at erhardt-leimer dot com> <CAL0py24_QS56gV_ouBrtTZJQM-gx+3+Kpu_iuvQbtvH38uhrfg at mail dot gmail dot com>
It is a sensible suggestion to me. The thing I'm not sure of is what
else needed besides _sbrk.
Anyone have any objection before I write a patch for _sbrk?
On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Joey Ye <email@example.com> wrote:
> It is a sensible suggestion to me. The thing I'm not sure of is what
> else needed besides _sbrk.
> Anyone have any objection before I write a patch for _sbrk?
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 9:16 PM, <A.Grieco@erhardt-leimer.com> wrote:
>> in the changing-process of our arm-none-eabi toolchain we found a
>> definition of _sbrk in the ..arm/syscalls.c file. Could you explain to me,
>> why this function isn't declared as a weak symbol? We recently where faced
>> with the problem of needing our own _sbrk defined, but also using the
>> "rdimon". The provided _sbrk function is not really applicable if you work
>> with - maybe even multiple - external memory.
>> So my question now:
>> Couldn't you add a weak declaration to the _sbrk? I mean this is such a
>> fundamental function to embedded devices, so I can't believe that no one
>> ever faced that problem. So everyone could use the newlib _sbrk, but it
>> would be also possible to provide a self-written.