From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-help-return-44445-listarch-gcc-help=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 32446 invoked by alias); 7 Feb 2011 23:47:33 -0000
Received: (qmail 32438 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Feb 2011 23:47:32 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail2.rz.htw-berlin.de (HELO mail2.rz.htw-berlin.de) (141.45.10.102)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 07 Feb 2011 23:47:27 +0000
Envelope-to: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
Received: from e178057177.adsl.alicedsl.de ([85.178.57.177] helo=[192.168.178.23])	by mail2.rz.htw-berlin.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)	(Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD))	(envelope-from <thomas.martitz@student.htw-berlin.de>)	id 1Pmaly-000CZb-3Z; Tue, 08 Feb 2011 00:45:34 +0100
Message-ID: <4D50848C.1070900@student.htw-berlin.de>
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 00:44:00 -0000
From: Thomas Martitz <thomas.martitz@student.htw-berlin.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101208 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com>
CC: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: suggestion for GCC (1)
References: <AANLkTimjBURspeLjNtrKV99GAYdVBuo2NMboZVknXEME@mail.gmail.com> <mcrfwrzv43w.fsf@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <mcrfwrzv43w.fsf@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-HTW-SPAMINFO: this message was scanned by eXpurgate (http://www.eleven.de)
X-HTW-DELIVERED-TO: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-help.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-02/txt/msg00150.txt.bz2

Am 08.02.2011 00:04, schrieb Ian Lance Taylor:
> ali hagigat<hagigatali@gmail.com>  writes:
>
>> A necessary feature for GCC is to compile C/Assembly programs without
>> standard libraries for Intel architectures.
> This feature can not and will not be implemented.  Some supporting
> routines are always required, particularly for gcc extensions like
> nested functions and __attribute__ ((cleanup)).
>
> Ian

IIRC the functions Ali mentioned (mem*) are the only required ones to 
build working binaries without C library (i.e. for bare metal targets). 
We do it this way at Rockbox.

But I wonder why, the mem* functions are trivial to implement in plain C 
so why does one need to provide them?

Best regards.