https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=123406
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #0) > Another look at current newlib sources shows that among those systems, only > cygwin implements the declared-but-missing functions. So, it seems safe to > assume for now, that no other newlib target actually implements them, and > that it'd be valid to hardcode a "no" for non-cygwin newlib targets. Ah OK, that shouldn't be too hard to fix then. > Though, a patch should preferably leave room for a manually added exception > list, should such a target appear. Agreed.
