No subject

that  these  users have a broken toolchain, and that they should take
the first opportunity to fix or replace it.

Of course it it nice if we can also provide a workaround for them, so
they can update at a point in time that is convenient to them. But the
implementation of such a workaround should be clean, and eventually be
used only for systems that really need it.

In no case we should make the use of such a workaround for broken
setups the rule which has to be used by all systems (and eventually
all architectures, even those that never had such problems in the
first place).

This is why I really hesitate to apply these patches - they make  the
workaround for a few broken systems the rule, instead of making clear
that this is an exception needed only by some (broken) systems.

> Regarding not using the compilers library and if this clever: No, it 
> isn't clever, you are right again. The compiler's library version is 
> most probably better optimized. But, we are dealing with a boot loader 

This is  in  no  way  a  question  of  optimization.  If  we  provide
replacements  for  the  libgcc  functions, _we_ will have to maintain
these and make sure they work correctly with all versions of GCC that
exist in the multiverse and with all of their possible and impossible
configurations. That's a lot of work we put on ouw own back for - for
what?

> here. So for the topic we discuss here, I think avoiding some pain for 
> us ("my tool chain doesn't compile U-Boot, help!" mails at this list) 
> and our users (see above) is the stronger argument than some 
> optimization/performance issues in some (seldom?) used math functions.

I think that answering a few mails, pointing out known problems  with
broken  tool chains requires by far less amount of effort than adding
this code. Heck, discussing and testing of this  patch  took  already
way more of my time than replying to all related messages in the last
3 years together...


I think the patch needs to be  changed  such  that  it  needs  to  be
specifically  enabled for broken tool chains, and that by default all
systems behave the same, i. e. assume a working tool  chain  and  use
libgcc.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
"Why waste negative entropy on comments, when you could use the  same
entropy to create bugs instead?"                        - Steve Elias