From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21865 invoked by alias); 8 Feb 2012 15:35:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 21742 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Feb 2012 15:35:30 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:35:18 +0000 From: "joseph at codesourcery dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/52163] [4.7 regression] 64bit powerpc libgcc is missing exported symbols Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:35:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: joseph at codesourcery dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.7.0 X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-02/txt/msg00865.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52163 --- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2012-02-08 15:34:32 UTC --- On Wed, 8 Feb 2012, amodra at gmail dot com wrote: > Correct. In fact, I think it's a waste of space to put the soft-float > functions in the normal ppc32 libgcc. They really only belong in the nof > libgcc. My view is that while they may need to stay for ABI compatibility, it should be possible to build very small versions for that case from generic C code for all the functions where GCC will reliably generate the expected code (not a recursive call) from generic C - so they don't actually take up much space in libgcc. SFtype __addsf3 (SFtype a, SFtype b) { return a + b; } etc. Doing this for Power is more complicated than for some architectures because of all the floating point variants including Xilinx and e500v1 which do only single-precision in hardware - and some variants may do some operations in hardware but not others, for a given type (e.g. __builtin_isunordered may involve a libgcc function for e500). But it's certainly feasible at the present state of the toplevel libgcc transition to control what functions are built from what sources on a per-multilib basis, testing the compiler used for that multilib to determine which floating-point configuration is applicable. And similar issues of not needing certain functions in libgcc, other than for compatibility, apply to other targets as well (MIPS in particular) - the generic C versions referred to above will be of use for more targets than just Power.