This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH 14/21] ARC: Enable __start as entry point vs. canonical _start

From: Vineet Gupta <vineet dot gupta1 at synopsys dot com>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
Cc: "libc-alpha at sourceware dot org" <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, "linux-snps-arc at lists dot infradead dot org" <linux-snps-arc at lists dot infradead dot org>
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 21:31:18 +0000
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/21] ARC: Enable __start as entry point vs. canonical _start
References: <1545167083-16764-1-git-send-email-vgupta@synopsys.com> <1545167083-16764-15-git-send-email-vgupta@synopsys.com> <87h8fay17b.fsf@oldenburg2.str.redhat.com>

On 12/18/18 1:28 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> ARC linker scripts have defined __start as entry point so to not break
>> ABI for uClibc et al we allow __start for glibc as well
> I think this change and the test suite fixes should be folded into the
> initial addition of these files.  Or is there a reason for not doing
> this?

I deliberately kept them out to call out the fixes, sometimes these help new ports
which stumble into similar issues. And also ~2 years worth of work gets squashed
into a single blob is a shame :-)

-Vineet

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH 14/21] ARC: Enable __start as entry point vs. canonical _start
  - From: Joseph Myers

References:
- [PATCH 00/21] glibc port to ARC processors
  - From: Vineet Gupta
- [PATCH 14/21] ARC: Enable __start as entry point vs. canonical _start
  - From: Vineet Gupta
- Re: [PATCH 14/21] ARC: Enable __start as entry point vs. canonical _start
  - From: Florian Weimer

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]