This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug target/29541] Enable IBM long double format in PowerPC Linux soft float
- From: "joseph at codesourcery dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 22 Oct 2006 13:20:14 -0000
- Subject: [Bug target/29541] Enable IBM long double format in PowerPC Linux soft float
- References: <bug-29541-6528@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2006-10-22 13:20 -------
Subject: Re: Enable IBM long double format in PowerPC
Linux soft float
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> There was talking about this on the mailing list but I cannot find it right
> now.
This is glibc bug 2749:
http://sources.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2749
which has all the necessary patches to both GCC and glibc.
To all intents and purposes we have a regression for PowerPC GNU/Linux
soft-float: current GCC+glibc are broken, pre-4.1 GCC and glibc 2.3
worked. In order to fix this regression, a fix to a soft-fp bug is
needed. As per the FSF copyright policy, this must go in glibc first.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-03/msg00558.html
says:
RMS says:
> The GLIBC developers should accept some conditionals into their
> source, so that we do not have two diverging versions. We should all
> talk together to make this happen.
He doesn't say that they should also accept bug fixes, but I think that
can be taken for granted.
Steven Munroe has submitted the relevant glibc fixes several times, both
to libc-alpha (for core glibc) and libc-ports (for ports) and to that
glibc bug report, but they have not been reviewed. I have stated on
libc-alpha that I believe the patches are correct, but I only maintain
soft-fp for GCC and cannot approve GCC-local changes that are not in
glibc, and my own soft-fp patches for glibc are not reviewed either.
At this point, I do not believe that the FSF copyright policy is workable
in the soft-fp case and so ask that the SC revisit it with RMS and the
glibc SC with a view to obtaining one of the following conclusions:
* Local changes for soft-fp are permitted in GCC (subject to review by GCC
soft-fp maintainers) until effective and prompt review and commit to glibc
CVS of such changes is available when they are submitted to glibc.
* In conjunction with the glibc maintainers, agreement is obtained that
glibc maintainers will review and commit more promptly changes to soft-fp
since it is imported into GCC and so they have responsibility in this
regard to more than just its users within glibc.
* glibc maintainers move soft-fp to the glibc ports repository, along with
the Alpha, Sparc and PowerPC code that uses it, and allow other
maintainers to maintain the code in the ports repository.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29541