This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC 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: [PowerPC] linuxspe vs. ibm long double.

From: Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au>
To: David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 09:12:23 +0930
Subject: Re: [PowerPC] linuxspe vs. ibm long double.
References: <20060330044157.GH22754@bubble.grove.modra.org> <200603302145.k2ULjt712268@makai.watson.ibm.com>

On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 04:45:55PM -0500, David Edelsohn wrote:
> > I also select IEEE long double for linux spe by default, because the
> > E500 ABI doc quite clearly states that while other long double formats
> > may be used by the compiler that they must not be the default.  Whether
> > compatibilty with the ABI matters more than compatibility with the new
> > linux default is arguable, but I'm inclined to favour E500 ABI
> > compatibility over linux compatibility in this case.
> 
> 	I agree with Joseph.

Well I don't have a strong opinion either way.  Is the patch OK to
install without the IEEE long double default?

-- 
Alan Modra
IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PowerPC] linuxspe vs. ibm long double.
  - From: David Edelsohn

References:
- [PowerPC] linuxspe vs. ibm long double.
  - From: Alan Modra
- Re: [PowerPC] linuxspe vs. ibm long double.
  - From: David Edelsohn

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