This is the mail archive of the
libc-ports@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the libc-ports project.
Re: Porting glibc to Coldfire
Richard Sandiford <richard@codesourcery.com> writes:
> Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de> writes:
>> Richard Sandiford <richard@codesourcery.com> writes:
>>
>>> - The canonical NaN has all significand bits set.
>>
>> This is not different to the 68881. Since any non-zero bit pattern
>> qualifies as NaN that should not be a problem.
>
> Right, all nonzero significands do of course count as NaN. But it
> depends what you mean by "problem". I think it's worthwhile allowing
> users to assume that the NaNs of the same sign produced by one function
> will have the same bit pattern as NaNs produced by another. In other
> words, it's a QoI issue.
I don't really like how it is implemented. It depends on implementation
details of the shadowed files, which can change and silently break the
hack. (Not that I expect it to change soon, but it already happened
once.) I'd rather leave it alone.
> What were you thoughts on the rest of the patch? Did it look
> OK otherwise?
How did you handle the lack of TLS support?
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."