On Monday 21 November 2011 10:11:29 Grant Edwards wrote: > Then put the __noreturn__ back in for the version of stdlib.h used by > that code. To fix the "no return PC" problem, all that matters is that > when the source code for abort() is compiled you don't tell gcc not to > provide a return address.
that makes it sound even more like a gcc/gdb bug > > yes, because from the perspective of uClibc, your report is invalid. > > there is a bug in the toolchain, but it most likely is not from uClibc. > > report it to whoever is providing your gcc/gdb ports. > > It's plain vanilla gcc/gdb as built by crosstool-ng for ARM. Can you > recommend a different toolchain that works correctly with uClibc? Or > perhaps we shouldn't use ARM processors with uClibc? ask someone working on gcc/gdb -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
