Bug#282269: Which problems did you observe without -ffreestanding?

[Thiemo Seufer <ica2_ts@csv.ica.uni-stuttgart.de>]

Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 12:05:17AM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > Bastian Blank wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 02:04:37PM +0900, Horms wrote:
> > > > I am pretty dubious about the possibility of this actually manifesting
> > > > breakage. And I am even more dubious about adding this if
> > > > the same isn't being done upstream. Can we close this for now?
> > > 
> > > mips upstream uses this always, s390 likes to include libgcc and have
> > > therefor to use this flag.
> > 
> > Actually mips upstream does _not_ use it always, because it might
> > break gcc 2.95. It is, however, the right thing to do for newer
> > compilers.
> 
> That's interesting.
> 
> Do you have any pointers to breakages with gcc 2.95?

Sorry, no. I vaguely remember there was a problem with changing
-ffreestanding semantics early in the gcc 3 development cycle,
but I don't have any reference for that.

It's probably best to bring this up on LKML, and propose a generic
patch if nobody remembers a reason against it.


Thiemo