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: Rich Felker <dalias at aerifal dot cx>, "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: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 14:40:23 -0500
- Subject: Re: Minimum floating-point requirements
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <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> <CAGWvnyn-Cj4Mw4efQTs2MYFHhknyskAEznEqpGeYnb9rY3X4hg at mail dot gmail dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1402150136490 dot 31722 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <CAGWvny=aJCdoQvC8q-dNvFdDNAqRCcZ7_adD=Sst8FDr0MN1Qg at mail dot gmail dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1402151656510 dot 6358 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20140216045946 dot GG184 at brightrain dot aerifal dot cx>
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:59 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 05:21:29PM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>> But I think this is a matter of imposing a decision about the PowerPC
>> "ecosystem" (see <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html>) on
>> glibc as much as imposing anything from glibc on anything else. And the
>> ultimate question is about the GNU system rather than that "ecosystem".
>
> Indeed. I see this issue as PowerPC folks imposing their legacy
> brokenness on everybody else (libc and application developers who have
> to work around it).
Every ABI has peculiarities and historical baggage. One of the
strengths of the GNU Toolchain has been its acceptance of and
accommodation of many different ISAs, ABIs and OSes. That is one of
the benefits that lead to its early success, providing the foundation
for GNU/Linux and all that followed. If the GNU Toolchain does not
want to support target-specific dependencies or only wants to support
it for a chosen set of targets or for a subset of currently pervasive
targets, then it will create a monoculture that is ripe for
disruption.
Also, I find it ironic that I am trying to discuss the imposition of
conformance on an ABI, and I am referred to a document trying to
impose conformance on my language.
Thanks, David