This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Quad-float math library: licence question
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 06:41:18PM +0200, Toon Moene wrote:
> Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> >On 08/14/2010 08:20 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
> >>On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 01:23:03PM +0200, Toon Moene wrote:
> >>>One obvious question I see coming is "why can't you just *call* the
> >>>binary128 routines in glibc ?", so I have to understand that bit first
> >>>(otherwise I'm bound to get into a slow back-and-forth between you
> >>>and me).
> >>glibc isn't the libc on many supported OS's, e.g.,
> >>FreeBSd, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Solaris, ...
> Yes, this is an excellent argument from Steve, which will then be
> ignored because the FSF (at least, RMS) maintains that the GNU project
> is about developing a *system*, not just individual parts that can be
> used as building blocks (e.g., on the various BSD variants).
> As you see, the discussion is not about licenses, but about what you
> think the goal of the GNU project (and *therefore*, the goal of GCC) is.
> >I am really beginning to like the separate new library idea! Lets just
> >do it!
> Well, I tried to defend gfortran having its own run-time library (as
> most other compilers have) and have full control over it - but alas, I
> never got very far with that argument in the discussion about Richard
> Guenther's contribution, either.
> So unless someone *really, really* wants me to reopen that issue on the
> SC mailing list, I'd rather refrain ...
Can we argue that FX's library is similar to libdecnumber? I've
actually thought about using libdecnumber to give gfortran a
real kind type with a base 10 radix. Should libdecnumber be
removed from gcc and assimulated into glibc?