This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Minimum floating-point requirements


On Wed, 29 Jan 2014, David Edelsohn wrote:

> As we discussed on the GCC Mailing List, I appreciate your desire for
> all GLIBC targets and ports to conform to relevant standards (IEEE,
> ISO C, etc.), but I think it is a very bad precedent to use standards
> conformance and community rules to override port maintainers in
> port-specific decisions. GLIBC should strive to be welcoming of all

My view as de facto maintainer of the soft-float powerpc support is that 
using a version of the IBM long double support code from libgcc that makes 
the basic arithmetic follow the normal accuracy goals of glibc libm 
functions is the most practical way to keep testsuite failures under 
control, allow function implementations for various functions such as 
those in <complex.h> to be shared among all long double formats rather 
than needing separate variants for different formats, and maintain the 
ability to use the testsuite to identify bugs in glibc.

I don't believe there is any port-specific decision that glibc functions 
on powerpc should not work in cases where they are expected to work on 
other platforms, such as cbrtl (LDBL_MAX).  Instead, I understand that 
Adhemerval has been using my libgcc patch when regenerating libm-test-ulps 
for hard-float powerpc for 2.19 and investigating remaining failures.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]