Ping/Repost (Updated 20120127): RFA: Add Epiphany newlib & libgloss port
Sat Jan 28 01:32:00 GMT 2012
On 01/27/2012 07:26 PM, Joern Rennecke wrote:
> Quoting Jeff Johnston <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
>> Can you explain why you didn't move sbrk.c from libc/sys/epiphany into
>> libgloss with the rest of the syscalls which is recommended?
> I was focusing on I/O (I realized there were two isatty definitions and
> it was non-obbvious which one was used).
> sbrk is more tied to linker scripts. Still, I suppose it makes sense to
> have it in libgloss, too. I'll have to check that that won't cause any
> issues for the customer, though.
>> than that, the changes look fine.
> Does that mean the port submission is approved if I move sbrk to libgloss?
> Or were you talking only about the incremental changes of the Epiphany port
> as such?
I was referring to the files and changes found in the 2 attachments to
the previous note. If you move sbrk to libgloss, yes, I will commit them.
-- Jeff J.
More information about the Newlib