search for: r217322

...while. > > I vaguely remember compnerd suggesting that I don't commit them to > compiler_rt, but I don't remember why. > I did dig into this further and it seems that they are, in fact, considered part of the RT-ABI :-(. Ive committed a simple conforming implementation in SVN r217322. > > Cheers, > > Jon > > > On 9/5/14, 12:10 PM, Sergey Dmitrouk wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> There are several places in compiler-rt which refer to __aeabi_idiv0. >> For example, in lib/builtins/arm/udivsi3.S: >> >> #ifdef __ARM_EABI__ >>...

...rote: > On 6 September 2014 22:46, Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org> > wrote: > > I did dig into this further and it seems that they are, in fact, > considered > > part of the RT-ABI :-(. Ive committed a simple conforming > implementation in > > SVN r217322. > > Hi Saleem, > > This implementation will differ from the current sdiv's expected > (return 0) if called from a place that doesn't mov r0, #0 just before > calling div0. > Why not adjust this instead? > ARM and GCC both throw an exception, and on non-EABI ARM,...

Hi, There are several places in compiler-rt which refer to __aeabi_idiv0. For example, in lib/builtins/arm/udivsi3.S: #ifdef __ARM_EABI__ b __aeabi_idiv0 #else JMP(lr) #endif At the same time there is no definition of it. It looks as if it was done intentionally so that third-party could provide custom handler for division by zero. IMHO It's not very consistent and looks odd as