This is the mail archive of the newlib@sourceware.org mailing list for the newlib project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Thu, 2006-06-01 at 23:03, Jeff Johnston wrote:
Shaun Jackman wrote:
On 6/1/06, Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn@redhat.com> wrote:
That is no problem, however, I just realized that I missed the fact that the libc/sys/arm directory needs to be changed as well because the flag will affect those users that don't disable newlib supplying syscalls. Since it is a bit more than a minor touch-up, any chance you could post another patch with the additional changes to libc/sys/arm?
I don't fully understand why the duplication of libgloss/arm and libc/sys/arm still exists. Keeping the two in sync is a royal pain. Can we finally remove libc/sys/arm and be done with it? Adding libgloss to the specs file would hide it from the user. Alternatively, libgloss could be inserted into libc.a at the same time libc.a is collected from all the component lib.a.
Cheers, Shaun
We have talked about this before. Gcc has to change over to use libgloss by default. Adding libgloss into the specs file would do it in conjunction with making non-newlib-supplied-syscalls the default from then on. Adding libgloss back into libc.a is not going to happen.
If I change gcc, won't it break the ability to use old versions of newlib? Also, won't it mean that people who don't want to use newlib as their C library will have to provide a stub libgloss.a?
I need to understand more about this change if you want gcc to be changed in this regard.
R.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |