[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0805211326080.19545@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 13:44:06 +0200 (CEST)
From: Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
cc: Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
geert@...ux-m68k.org, linux-m68k@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: -ffreestanding or not -ffreestanding
Hi,
On Wed, 21 May 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Can we try to get this sorted out properly instead of constantly
> fiddling with it?
>
> Currently we use -ffreestanding on some architectures and fix breakages
> on the other architectures when they arise.
This won't help completely unless you also clean up all archs to use the
same mappings to the builtin functions.
The main problem I had with -ffreestanding is that it's awkward to map a
library function to the builtin function and also provide the fallback
from lib/string.c.
If you look at asm-m68k/string.h I once tried this with the mem* functions
and I still have the duplicated memcmp in arch/m68k/lib/string.c.
(You could argue that it would be easier to just remove the define for
memcmp in this specific case, but I'm interested in the general case.)
bye, Roman
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists