Aldy Hernandez wrote: > There was a thread discussing all this, when I was interested in doing > the work. I mailed rms directly, and he said it was ok to use the > glibc bits in gcc regardless of the LGPL/GPL disparity.
Do you happen to have a pointer, or a copy of that message? If that route ends up making the most sense, then it would be nice to have our ducks in a row. As for the 16-bit issue, I don't think that's necessarily an all-or-nothing switch; the most likely route of progress would be to add ieeelib.c/glibc soft-fp and then gradually migrate targets that wanted to migrate. Joseph is comparing the two alternatives with fp-bit.c, and I'd expect he'll have an opinion about which is best. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304
