On Tue, 2020-04-14 at 17:26 +0200, Sebastian Huber wrote: > Hello Jeff, > > On 08/04/2020 22:24, Jeff Law wrote: > > > On Wed, 2020-04-08 at 19:47 +0200, Sebastian Huber wrote: > > > Add a start/end file specification if the -qrtems option is present. > > > Allow targets to customize it. > > > > > > Support the standard -nodefaultlibs option. > > > > > > gcc/ > > > > > > * config/rtems.h (RTEMS_STARTFILE_SPEC): Define if undefined. > > > (RTEMS_ENDFILE_SPEC): Likewise. > > > (STARTFILE_SPEC): Update comment. Add RTEMS_STARTFILE_SPEC. > > > (ENDFILE_SPEC): Add RTEMS_ENDFILE_SPEC. > > > (LIB_SPECS): Support -nodefaultlibs option. > > > * config/or1k/rtems.h (RTEMS_STARTFILE_SPEC): Define. > > > (RTEMS_ENDFILE_SPEC): Likewise. > > > * config/rs6000/rtems.h (RTEMS_STARTFILE_SPEC): Likewise. > > > (RTEMS_ENDFILE_SPEC): Likewise. > > > * config/v850/rtems.h (RTEMS_STARTFILE_SPEC): Likewise. > > > (RTEMS_ENDFILE_SPEC): Likewise. > > How important is it to get this into gcc-10? We're well into stage4 at this > > point and while we do have leeway with a patch like this we do want to be > > selective about what we accept. > > > > If it's important, then OK, otherwise please defer it to gcc-11, where it's > > pre- > > approved. > would it be all right to commit it to the trunk once the GCC 11 > development starts and then back port it for GCC 10.2 after a while? That works for me. It's not technically a regression, but I think some leeway is reasonable.
jeff
