floating point war casualty list

[Stephen L Moshier]

>  > The stated reasons for breaking all those things were
>  >     we don't trust assemblers
>  >     we got rid of <expletive deleted>
>  > The real reason, apparently, is that you are narrowing the
>  > project focus and sloughing off things that don't fit in the focus.
>  > That may be disappointing but at least it makes some sense.
> Not exactly.  We are dropping targets which do not have folks to maintain them
> and which have not worked in modern history.  That's not a change in focus, but
> good project management.

That's well and good.
The immediate reason I am here talking to you, however, is that people
are crying you broke my cray, you broke my pdp11, you broke my vax.
That is a regression in gcc-3.1.  The change that broke them
should be reverted.  According to your policy manual, they have
the right to insist that.