Re: My proposal for the libgcc runtime ABI (ia64 gcc/glibc is broken.)

["H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>]

On Wed, Jul 12, 2000 at 05:16:49PM -0500, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> AIX is also an OS (like GNU/Linx) that has separate "ownership" of
> C runtime and compiler (though this is not true for other language
> runtime/compilers offered on AIX). IBM's C compiler is offered on
> platforms besides AIX. We learned early along that the
> low-level function (found in libgcc in this case) is best maintained 
> by the platform, since the platform is ultimately responsible for 
> the ABI in the users' view -- not the compiler. This is even true for
> the C++/thread exception handling work; the compiler team came to 
> us and we did the work to come up with a design that maintained
> source and binary compatibility in our runtime. Yes, the compiler
> determines a lot of things basic to the total ABI, but the platform
> loader/library is where the "rubber meets the road" and that what
> this code in libgcc truly covers.
> 
> I see the same situation applies here -- even more so, since gcc
> operates in places without shared libs or glibc at all. What I see
> is that the platforms need to assume ownership of this, but gcc
> needs to document the things it needs to see from it, and only
> the things it needs to see, and leave the rest to the platform-
> specific version of libgcc. Maybe the gcc team will "pick up" ownership
> for platforms that cannot maintain it themselves, but trying to
> maintain all of them is something I would not recommend.

Thanks for your eloquent explanation. I agree with you almost 100%.

> 
> This is just opinion based on similar practical experience; I am still
> learning to understand H. J. Lu's idea and so cannot comment on
> it.
> 

My idea is very similar, if not identical, to yours.


H.J.