Hi all,
On 21/10/16 09:00, Christophe Lyon wrote:
[ccying Ramana]
Ramana is currently OoO all of this week.
Kyrill
On 20 October 2016 at 18:34, Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> wrote:
On 20/10/16 09:26 -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
On Oct 20, 2016, at 5:20 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> wrote:
I am considering leaving this in the ARM backend to force people to
think what they want to do about thread safety with statics and C++
on bare-metal systems.
The quoting makes it look like those are my words, but I was quoting
Ramana from https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-05/msg02751.html
Not quite in the GNU spirit? The port people should decide the best way
to get as much functionality as possible and everything should just work, no
sharp edges.
Forcing people to think sounds like a sharp edge?
I'm inclined to agree, but we are talking about bare metal systems,
where there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Choosing something that
makes most of the library unusable will upset one group of people, and
choosing something that adds overhead that could be avoided will upset
another group.
Either way, I don't think disabling 50% of the testsuite is the
answer. If you don't like the failures, configure the library to build
without threadsafe statics, or configure it to depend on libatomic, or
something else. (We might want new --enable-xxx switches to simplify
doing that).
So if we say that the current behaviour has to keep being the default,
so that users think about what they are really doing, I can certainly
patch my validation scripts to add a configure flag for this particular
configuration.
Is arm-none-eabi the only target having this problem?
Thanks,
Christophe
