Hi Simon,
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Graeme Russ <graeme.r...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Simon, > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: >> >> Hi Graeme, >> >> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: >> > From: Graeme Russ <graeme.r...@gmail.com> > > > [snip] > >> >> > diff --git a/examples/standalone/Makefile b/examples/standalone/Makefile >> > index baaa2fb..7c1ea5c 100644 >> > --- a/examples/standalone/Makefile >> > +++ b/examples/standalone/Makefile >> > @@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ $(ELF): >> > $(obj)%: $(obj)%.o $(LIB) >> > $(LD) $(LDFLAGS) -g -Ttext $(CONFIG_STANDALONE_LOAD_ADDR) \ >> > -o $@ -e $(SYM_PREFIX)$(notdir $(<:.o=)) $< $(LIB) >> > \ >> > - -L$(gcclibdir) -lgcc >> > + -L$(USE_PRIVATE_LIBGCC) -lgcc >> >> This forces all archs to use a private libgcc here, right? Is that the >> intention? It seems to break some of the powerpc boards with my > > > Eeep - no, that was not the intent. I did this so long ago I can't even > remember why I did the USE_PRIVATE_LIBGCC I've had a closer look, and I think this part of the patch is really a hangover from commit 36b2409a3d469b5133d105fa12089429a1900bde (x86: Wrap small helper functions from libgcc to avoid an ABI mismatch) So the proper solution would be to break this patch into two patches - one that fixes the libgcc/abi mismatch for examples/standalone and one that fixes building on 64-bit build machines. There might have been some discussion about the libgcc/regparm mismatch, but I can't recall. I'm wondering if the option of dumping regparm was considered. It really only impacts the code where there is a boundary between .S and .c files and inline asm like in arch/x86/cpu/interrupts.c Overall, it might be a cleaner solution Regards, Graeme _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
