This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Minimum floating-point requirements
- From: David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Steve Munroe <sjmunroe at us dot ibm dot com>, Adhemerval Zanella <azanella at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 20:20:48 -0500
- Subject: Re: Minimum floating-point requirements
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAGWvnym4yN=7rLrm0RRtNN++T=xwx8r3MUKJOfz4r+H=Z9zd7Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1401300038120 dot 24633 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <OF9FA4A0A3 dot 0CD33B43-ON86257C70 dot 0073531F-86257C70 dot 0073A4BB at us dot ibm dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1401302108080 dot 12540 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1402072347200 dot 12232 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <OF54854818 dot C108092B-ON86257C7B dot 0063B8C0-86257C7B dot 006B6B53 at us dot ibm dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1402102231400 dot 26591 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Joseph S. Myers
<joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> I don't want to keep having to go through large amounts of noise on
> powerpc when fixing some libm problem (globally) after improving test
> coverage, or every release cycle when seeking to ensure the test results
> for soft-float powerpc are clean and problems shown up by test results are
> fixed; I want to fix the causes of these problems at their source, once
> and for all.
Joseph,
This is the exact issue. You want to impose something that is
convenient for you. You have decided that the ultimate goal should be
cleanliness and conformance. And you want to use language standards,
library standards and project rules to impose your vision on the
PowerPC port.
When you create your own processor architecture and ABI, you can make
the trade-offs that you prefer. The PowerPC architecture and ABI have
various warts and bumps and historical artifacts that need to be
accommodated. And those of us responsible for the toolchain are making
compromises for technical and business reasons because, ultimately,
GNU/Linux is a global business.
We understand that the IBM long double design affects the testsuite
and introduces additional failures. We are willing to help annotate
the expected failures in testcases.
I understand your goals, but I think that imposing this conformance
through libgcc or GLIBC is overstepping the role that GLIBC should
play in directing the behavior of an architecture and ABI.
Thanks, David