[uClibc]Re: a couple of fixes

[Manuel Novoa III]

Erik,

On Sat, 13 Jan 2001, Erik Andersen wrote:
> The reason I started using _start.S and linking it into the lib directly was it
> seemed painful to always link in crt0.  With the addition of gcc-uClibc it is
> much less painful now.  I am wondering, maybe we should go back to the standard
> method of providing a separate crt0 lib.  Thoughts?

I think using crt0 across archs is a good idea.

On the cross-arch front, it doesn't appear that weak symbols are available in
James Graves' environment.  I hate to give them up on i386 since they're so
convenient.  The best alternative I've come up with so far is to provide almost
empty object files which could be linked before the library.  For example, an
object file called something like omit_stdio.o could provide an empty
__init_stdio function, and could be linked before the library to avoid pulling
in the unused stdio code.  This could be done in conjuction with some
gcc-uClibc options to make the process easier -- say gcc-uClibc --no-stdio.
What do you think?  I'd still like to keep the weak symbol stuff where it is
supported.

One unrelated question -- do you think there is any reason to keep
sys_errlist[] as is?  Right now it is about 3.7k.  With a mini-sized
compression scheme, I think I can shave from 1.5k to 2k off of the necessary
data storage and still implement strerror.c.  But sys_errlist[] would go away. 
Comments?  I suppose we could do both and allow a choice.

Manuel