Re: libgcc

[Nick Hudson <nick.hudson%gmx.co.uk@localhost>]

On Friday 20 November 2009 12:10:30 Masao Uebayashi wrote:
> I'm looking at libgcc mainly to support 128-bit softfloat on MIPS64.  We
> build part of libgcc and provide similar functions in libc.  I have no idea
> how the line between them is drawn.

When I did shared libgcc I took the opinion that libgcc is more complete / 
better for most if not all achitectures.

> (I think that libc's providing functions to support a specific compiler's
> run-time is just plain wrong.  What if we'll move to PCC or Clang?  Even if
> they adopt GCC-compatible APIs...)

Probably true.

> Anyway, I'd want to change libgcc to provide all the functions it should
> rather than choosing part of them.  This should not cause any problem,
> because libgcc is always passed to ld(1) lastly (even after libc).

What's missing? softfloat?

> Masao

Nick