This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Enhance soft-fp for TFmode<->[DI,SI,TI,XF]mode conversions
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Ulrich Drepper <drepper at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, rms at gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 12:23:06 +0000 (UTC)
- Subject: Re: Enhance soft-fp for TFmode<->[DI,SI,TI,XF]mode conversions
- References: <461E96A4.firstname.lastname@example.org> <Pine.LNX.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <Pine.LNX.email@example.com> <4620E86F.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20070414163829.GC355@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <email@example.com> <20070415161020.GE355@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <462BB59D.firstname.lastname@example.org> <46384A45.email@example.com>
On Wed, 2 May 2007, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > This patch enhances soft-fp for TFmode<->[DI,SI,TI,XF]mode conversions.
> > It was tested for x86_64 target with gcc testsuite.
> And what has this to do with glibc? This is not a dumping ground for
> code needed in other projects.
The FSF policy as stated at
<http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-03/msg00558.html> is that soft-fp is not
to be modified locally in GCC and that changes needed for GCC should
accordingly be accepted in glibc (subject of course to not adversely
affecting the use of this code in glibc).
That covers all the changes to existing files in glibc. As for the new
files: RMS, is it OK to add new files to the copy of soft-fp in GCC where
those files are for operations not required in glibc? If so, exactly what
license notices should go on such files local to GCC? The notice
+/* Software floating-point emulation.
+ Convert a 128bit signed integer to IEEE single
+ Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+ This file is part of the GNU C Library.
+ Contributed by Uros Bizjak (firstname.lastname@example.org).
+ The GNU C Library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
+ modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
+ License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
+ version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
+ In addition to the permissions in the GNU Lesser General Public
+ License, the Free Software Foundation gives you unlimited
+ permission to link the compiled version of this file into
+ combinations with other programs, and to distribute those
+ combinations without any restriction coming from the use of this
+ file. (The Lesser General Public License restrictions do apply in
+ other respects; for example, they cover modification of the file,
+ and distribution when not linked into a combine executable.)
+ The GNU C Library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+ but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+ MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
+ Lesser General Public License for more details.
+ You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
+ License along with the GNU C Library; if not, write to the Free
+ Software Foundation, 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston,
+ MA 02110-1301, USA. */
as in the patch under discussion
<http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2007-04/msg00032.html> is appropriate
for files in glibc, but not for files only in GCC.
If we do put such files in GCC only, what procedure would then be needed
to move them to the glibc ports collection and change the license notices
at a later date? I expect many of these files to be of potential use in
the glibc ports collection in future (for MIPS64 soft-float), although not
for core libc.
Joseph S. Myers