Dear "Remy Bohmer",
In message 3efb10970811021218g6d30d611r479c8e800991abf4@mail.gmail.com you wrote:
libgcc could also expect the 'raise()' routine to pass divide-by-zero execeptions. (if __div0, (or __aeabi_ldiv0) is not overruled)
raise()? exceptions? In C?
In the mean time things are getting more clear. In the ARM section of U-boot a large amount of (division) routines which are usually provided by libgcc are also implemented in the lib_arm directory. For many ARM boards it is therefore possible to remove linking to libgcc at all, and it won't hurt the resulting binary at all (because nothing is currently used from libgcc on ARM).
...unless you use some (probably older) tool chains where this may break. I guess there was a readon to add these functions. We did not do this for the fun of it.
Some routines are still lacking in the lib_arm tree and if GCC starts generating code (due to some code change) that requires those missing routines, we now get link errors if a EABI only compiler is used. (If for example the eabi compiler toolchain of CodeSourcery is used (e.g. 2008q1) then the provided libgcc is not
So, I agree (now) that libgcc should be used, but this is _not the case_ currently in the ARM tree.
I think I saw libgcc on the linker command line ?
What I now believe that should be done is to investigate (compile time) what type of ABI is supported by the libgcc provided by the compiler, and adjust the compile settings to that ABI.
If such a thing needs to be done, it is a compiler-issue, and we do not have to know or care about that.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk