------- Additional Comments From joern dot rennecke at st dot com 2005-03-29 11:54 ------- Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] shared SH libgcc is exporting too many symbols
kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: >------- Additional Comments From kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-25 >00:30 ------- >"joern dot rennecke at st dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>FWIW, __mulsi3 should also not be exported, although that is not a >>regression. >> >> > >For the efficiency, yes. Unfortunately, it causes the binary >compatibility problem for the old binaries refering [EMAIL PROTECTED] >At least, SH linux has too many such binaries already. > Does it, actually? The mulsi3_call-1 pattern is only used for SH1 code. > >BTW, I could find the use of libgcc-excl.ver in t-linux only. >All targets which make the shared libgcc with the ordinally SH >PIC ABI should use it or similar excl.ver, shouldn't they? > Yes, they should. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20617
