This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: [PATCH, RFC] Enable IBM long double for PPC32 Linux


On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 09:12:54PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> Personally, and explicitly not speaking for my employer, I fully agree 
> with Andrew Pinski that this kind of change is not appropriate for GCC
> 4.1 at this point in the release cycle.

I don't like it either, but what's the alternative?  To have gcc not work
with glibc properly?

> It is clearly against our development model and negatively impacts our
> schedule and the stabilization work done by many in the last months and
> was not even raised on the steering committee (which I would consider a
> requirement in such a case).

I agree that the matter should have been raised far earlier, and that
glibc decisions of this kind should be coordinated with gcc, and in this
case the issue should have been discussed far earlier.

But given what is happened, do you really think it's proper for us to just
say no, we are rigidly sticking to our schedule and we don't care what the
consequences are?

4.1 is not out yet.  Once it is out, we'll have an ABI/API we can't mess
with until 4.2.  If this was a screwup that no one noticed until this
point, then better now than after 4.1 ships.

I am not advocating a particular course of action other than to say that
I'm willing to take the time to get it right, regardless of previously
published schedules.


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