On Thursday 24 November 2011 00:51:08 Grant Edwards wrote: > Sorry if I stepped on somebody's toes, but I thought it seemed like a > reasonable request. AFAICT, GCC is the only toolchain that uClibc is > used with, and ARM is by far the most popular embedded Linux > architecture, so I presumed that making uClibc play well with gcc/ARM > would be A Good Thing(TM).
it is not a reasonable request to add workarounds to common uClibc code in order to workaround bugs in other projects and specific arches. you haven't shown that this is a bug in uClibc, so until you do, it makes no sense to change the code. we don't go blindly throwing changes in the source tree until things "seem to work". you find the *real* problem, figure out *why*, and then post fixes to the *correct* places. anything else is an unmaintainable pile of crap. so as soon as you come up with real information that says that there is an actual bug in uClibc, you're wasting everyone's time. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list uClibc@uclibc.org http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
