[PATCH] [POWERPC] Fix kernel builds with newer gcc versions and -Os
scottwood at freescale.com
Sat May 3 07:40:14 EST 2008
Kumar Gala wrote:
> On May 2, 2008, at 12:34 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>>> Why don't we just link with libgcc?
>>> Its something of a PITA to do that in the kernel at this point since
>>> we've duplicated libgcc functionality in it. I'm sure there are some
>>> historical reasons this wasn't done to start with.
>> That's the same as saying that it would be a nice cleanup to remove all
>> that duplicated code now...
> We'll hopefully this thread might spark either an explanation for why we
> aren't just linking libgcc in a statement that says we should and we can
> remove the code that implements libgcc functionality.
> How would libgcc linking intermix with modules? Would we have to
> EXPORT_SYMBOL() all functions that libgcc implements?
A quick way to generate such a list would be to build a non-modular
kernel and leave out the libgcc link (after removing the reimplemented
functions), and see what linker errors you get.
> I'm guessing that's varies w/different gcc versions.
Yeah, but so does the set of functions that Linux needs to reimplement.
More information about the Linuxppc-dev