This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Torbjorn's ieeelib.c
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Anthony Green <green at redhat dot com>, gcc mailing list <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 07:55:27 -0800
- Subject: Re: Torbjorn's ieeelib.c
- References: <438BB76E.8070905@codesourcery.com> <1133296590.3187.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> <438CBD3C.8070901@codesourcery.com> <20051129210123.GA21961@redhat.com> <m3mzjk3oer.fsf@coqui.quesejoda.com>
Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> There was a thread discussing all this, when I was interested in doing
> the work. I mailed rms directly, and he said it was ok to use the
> glibc bits in gcc regardless of the LGPL/GPL disparity.
Do you happen to have a pointer, or a copy of that message? If that
route ends up making the most sense, then it would be nice to have our
ducks in a row.
As for the 16-bit issue, I don't think that's necessarily an
all-or-nothing switch; the most likely route of progress would be to add
ieeelib.c/glibc soft-fp and then gradually migrate targets that wanted
to migrate.
Joseph is comparing the two alternatives with fp-bit.c, and I'd expect
he'll have an opinion about which is best.
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com
(916) 791-8304