[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 14:53:01 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Current status: important changes since 0.9.11
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 08:39:23PM +0200, Harald Becker wrote:
> Hi Rich !
>
> > Oh, and the new crt1.c idea could probably go in too, even
> > though it won't be used much yet except possibly adding PIE
> > support on mips, powerpc, and microblaze.
>
> I looked at your new crt1.c and I like it. Why not using it for
> main stream purpose if it works for all purposes? Are there any
My feeling was just that:
1. We already have "optimized asm" for a few archs, and I didn't see a
strong argument for removing it.
2. There's a chance to mess up odd arch-specific requirements,
alignment, etc. in the new asm fragment unless it undergoes some
careful review.
However I do also agree with you, and think simplicity/consistency
possibly override reason #1 above, and #2 could easily be handled if
some time is put into review and testing of the new code.
Anyone else have opinions on the matter?
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
