Re: [PATCH, committed] Fix PowerPC long double bootstrap

[David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>]

>>>>> Joseph S Myers writes:

Joseph> I do not believe any of the principles have changed since the previous 
Joseph> thread <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-01/subjects.html#01563>.  
Joseph> Building with -mlong-double-128 makes some additional functions to support 
Joseph> TFmode available in libgcc.  It does not affect the functions for DFmode 
Joseph> etc. that are present in any case.

	I will be content with either solution.

	That thread mainly is about technical feasibility.  I am trying to
find a good justification for GCC supporting -mlong-double-128 if it was
not configured that way, the OS does not include support, and
-mlong-double-128 is not a multilib.  My concern is some other dependency
creeping in at a later date causing GCC configured without long-double-128
to omit some bits and then GCC has a broken feature.

	I know always including -mlong-double-128 support in libgcc is
useful and convenient, but is it safe for long-term maintenance.  Why is
it a good idea effectively to hide a multilib inside libgcc?

Thanks, David