2013/7/28 Michael Eager <ea...@eagerm.com>: > On 07/27/13 15:18, Alexander Ivchenko wrote: >> >> Hi Joseph, thanks for your comments. >> >> I updated the patch: > > >> >> 2013/7/9 Joseph S. Myers <jos...@codesourcery.com>: > > >>> >>> * It looks rather like microblaze*-*-* don't use elfos.h, so meaning >>> semantics aren't preserved for those (non-Linux) targets either. Now, I >>> don't know if there's a good reason for not using that file (ask the >>> architecture maintainer), but in any case semantics should be preserved. > > > > I don't know why microblaze does not include elfos.h. It looks like > it should, to be consistent with other targets. This would require some > cleanup and verification. > > Your patch adds the following to microblaze.h, duplicating the change > to elfos.h: > +/* microblaze-unknown-elf target has no support of C99 runtime */ > +#undef TARGET_LIBC_HAS_FUNCTION > +#define TARGET_LIBC_HAS_FUNCTION no_c99_libc_has_function > > I'm assuming that this means that no other change to microblaze is > needed and the question about elfos.h is moot.
Yes, with this change in my patch the semantics for microblaze-unknown-elf is preserved. As for microblaze-unknown-linux-gnu case - the "linux_android_libc_has_function" version of TARGET_LIBC_HAS_FUNCTION from linux.h will be used, so the semantics is preserved as well. --Alexander
