From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 108318 invoked by alias); 27 Jul 2017 19:57:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 108309 invoked by uid 89); 27 Jul 2017 19:57:58 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=invention, air X-HELO: gate.crashing.org Received: from gate.crashing.org (HELO gate.crashing.org) (63.228.1.57) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 19:57:57 +0000 Received: from gate.crashing.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.13.8) with ESMTP id v6RJveQh028801; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 14:57:40 -0500 Received: (from segher@localhost) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id v6RJvd6p028800; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 14:57:39 -0500 Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 19:57:00 -0000 From: Segher Boessenkool To: Sebastian Huber Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] [PowerPC/RTEMS] Add 64-bit support using ELFv2 ABI Message-ID: <20170727195739.GX13471@gate.crashing.org> References: <20170725122521.10857-1-sebastian.huber@embedded-brains.de> <20170726175619.GP13471@gate.crashing.org> <4518ab10-1391-5d3b-4b7e-af1e502d0919@embedded-brains.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4518ab10-1391-5d3b-4b7e-af1e502d0919@embedded-brains.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-07/txt/msg01853.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 07:28:30AM +0200, Sebastian Huber wrote: > >This deletes eabi.h and I don't see you add all its definitions to > >rtems.h directly (NAME__MAIN etc.) Is this on purpose? > > Yes, I always wondered why GCC added the __eabi() call to main() out of > thin air. In general, there is no main() function in RTEMS. Instead, you > can statically configure initialization threads. We call __eabi() in the > low-level startup code, e.g. > > https://git.rtems.org/rtems/tree/c/src/lib/libbsp/powerpc/qoriq/start/start.S#n144 Heh, I always thought the EABI must require it, but it seems to be a GCC invention. Patch looks fine to me then. You can approve it yourself of course :-) Segher