[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2 V2] Move libgcc inclusion from common Makefile to platform configs files

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD]

On 09:33 Sat 20 Jun     , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday 20 June 2009 09:01:36 Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> > On 08:57 Sat 20 Jun     , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Saturday 20 June 2009 07:30:41 Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> > > > On 07:08 Sat 20 Jun     , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday 20 June 2009 06:40:07 Jean-Christophe wrote:
> > > > > > On 06:18 Sat 20 Jun     , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday 20 June 2009 05:33:26 Jean-Christophe wrote:
> > > > > > > > This patch moves the libgcc Makefile inclusion from the
> > > > > > > > toplevel Makefile to the arch_config.mk files. This is in
> > > > > > > > preparation for the ARM architecture to move away from
> > > > > > > > including libgcc function and only using self-contained U-Boot
> > > > > > > > functions as done in Linux.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > why not change the top level Makefile to read:
> > > > > > > PLATFORM_LIBGCC ?= ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > then any board/arch that doesnt want it can simply do:
> > > > > > > PLATFORM_LIBGCC = # dont want it
> > > > > >
> > > > > > because you need to provide the equivalent functions for standalone
> > > > > > application and api and U-Boot ofcourse
> > > > >
> > > > > so move it to config.mk.  this doesnt change the important point:
> > > > > leave PLATFORM_LIBGCC default in the toplevel common files.  what i
> > > > > proposed doesnt limit what you want to do with arm in any way.
> > > >
> > > > I think it's better to let it at arch level and force any new arch
> > > > adding to manage it instead provide a default one
> > >
> > > considering most arches want this code, i dont think so.  you're
> > > proposing we duplicate the same common code in all arches to support one
> > > deviating arch -- arm.  the defaults should reflect the common state
> > > while the deviating ones change the behavior as they like.
> >
> > This is where I disagree other arch as mips and other will also need to
> > move away from the needs to include libgcc to be really toolchain
> > independant
> >
> > I do think it's really important for U-Boot be able to have full control to
> > have a functions embedded into.
> >
> > So stop to have libgcc include by default will really reflect it
> 
> so you have two arches (mips/arm) that you dont want to use libgcc.  that is 
> still vastly the minority.  if we ever do get most ports not using libgcc, 
> then pushing it to the arch configs makes sense.  but we havent and we arent 
> even close.
which minoroty?
I just give you example but you will see arm, mips, sh, powerpc etc...
toolchains problem just because we use the libgcc

I've patch in qualification for mips and sh so it will not be so long
maybe 2 or 3 weeks
> 
> how you want to manage libgcc dependency is your prerogative ... it doesnt 
> mean you should be forcing other people to follow suit.
you can do your own choice but I steel think it's a good improvement

Best Regards,
J.