On Thu, 2013-09-26 at 14:47 +0100, Marcus Shawcroft wrote: > I'm in two minds about whether further sticky tape of this form is the > right approach or whether the original patch should be reverted until a > proper fix that does not regress the tree can be found. > > Thoughts? > > 2013-09-26 Marcus Shawcroft <marcus.shawcr...@arm.com> > > * configure.ac (AC_CHECK_FUNCS_ONCE): Make if statement > dependent on gcc_no_link. > > Cheers > /Marcus
I think this patch is a good fix. I (obviously) don't favor reverting the previous patch because that would re-break the Fortran build on MIPS bare-metal cross compilers (or any compiler where a linker script is needed). Any 'proper' fix should address libstdc++, libjava, and other libraries as well as libgfortran and I don't know what a cleaner fix would be. In fact I would say the other libraries should consider using this fix. The only reason they don't run into this problem too is that they don't depend on any long double functions or any other functions that are optionally built by newlib. I will test this patch on my targets and make sure it works for me, but I don't see why it would not. Steve Ellcey sell...@mips.com
