Re: The libgcc.so for glibc initiative

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

On Fri, Jul 14, 2000 at 01:12:21AM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
>    > > 
>    > > Last time when I tried it, they didn't wany any solution which only
>    > > works for glibc. They want a solution which works on all targets gcc
>    > > supports. That is why I said the solution they chose would fall far
>    > > short for glibc.
> 
> What's wrong with requesting a solution that isn't Linux/glibc
> specific for a problem that isn't Linux/glibc specific?
> 

Nothing if you can find one.

>    > I had a discussion on this point with another gcc SC member,
>    > David Edelsohn. He is of the opinion that looking at libgcc as a
>    > per-platform item is a valid viewpoint, and agrees that maybe
>    > there needs to be a version done for gibc. He's not the only one
>    > who feels that way -- don't know if he represents the majority or
>    > not.
> 
>    I am very glad to hear that.
> 
> Looking at libgcc as a per-platform item may be a valid viewpoint, but
> certainly not the only one.  There's a huge part of the current libgcc
> that's pretty much per-architecture.  There's also a lot of C++
> support code for which I cannot find a reason not to share among
> platforms.
> 

Do you have an alternative? I am not against a solution which works
for all targets and also meets the glibc requirement.

Thanks.



H.J.