Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 29 Jun 2006 16:54:03 -0700 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: [klibc 07/31] i386 support for klibc |
| |
Roman Zippel wrote:
>> 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 >> compatibility. > > 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?
What on earth are you talking about?
a. The semantics of these functions are well-defined, stable, and documented in the gcc documentation. It's not like they have compiler-version-specific definitions that could change.
b. For static binaries, this is no issue. klibc is shared, not dynamic (thus eliminating the need for a space-consuming dynamic linker), but it also means that there is no cross-version calling; each build of the shared klibc library has a hashed filename, thus allowing multiple versions of klibc to coexist if absolutely necessary.
Either way, this is a red herring.
>>> 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.
I'm not entirely surprised.
-hpa - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |