Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2012 19:23:05 -0800 From: Tim Kientzle <tim@kientzle.com> To: Stanislav Sedov <stas@freebsd.org> Cc: "arm@freebsd.org" <arm@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ports cross-compilers vs. native toolchain Message-ID: <3206B98F-E9F1-4758-9741-AF29FE7CCBFA@kientzle.com> In-Reply-To: <88338819-70CF-4BA7-92AE-95864F159FF4@FreeBSD.org> References: <23CB6C35-9450-40BA-9FA3-37C44B328CA8@freebsd.org> <CABt%2Bj0mB4w==h_SQ4YyDM24_wGOjcdZDK9T1N3DqjSkap0VkQw@mail.gmail.com> <E8A24EBE-967D-44F8-A884-3207B3C6F0FE@bsdimp.com> <8042D895-3B3D-431E-ADCC-A150BDC838ED@kientzle.com> <890D6B89-8031-496C-A5A2-A2836369F765@FreeBSD.org> <A68B207A-2754-4222-A30B-FDBD143A03D5@kientzle.com> <88338819-70CF-4BA7-92AE-95864F159FF4@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mar 3, 2012, at 5:29 PM, Stanislav Sedov wrote: > > On Mar 3, 2012, at 11:03 AM, Tim Kientzle <tim@kientzle.com> wrote: > >> >> 2) Missing div/mod functions in ARM libgcc. >> >> You can work around this by adding -lc to a couple >> of places in the u-boot makefiles. I'm also looking into >> a fix for FreeBSD libgcc. (Looks like these functions >> were disabled deliberately? > > Hmm, maybe they are disabled because libc supplies them? Yes, this seems to be exactly the rationale. If I copy the various div/mod object files from libc.a into libgcc.a, then u-boot compiles out-of-the-box with the FreeBSD xdev tools. I'm rebuilding the xdev tools now with the obvious one-line patch to libcompiler_rt to verify further. Is there any compelling reason they can't be in both places? Tim P.S. It is just a tad confusing that libgcc.a and libgcc.so are completely different libraries with different contents compiled from different sources. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3206B98F-E9F1-4758-9741-AF29FE7CCBFA>