Re: Please fork soft-fp from libc

2007-06-14 Thread DJ Delorie
Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It seems like SItype would be sufficient everywhere, and I can't see > any obvious reason it would be slower. What about 16-bit targets?

Re: Please fork soft-fp from libc

2007-06-14 Thread Uros Bizjak
Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 08:07:32PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote: I belive that by changing mentioned typedef line of soft-fp.h into #ifndef CMPtype #define CMPtype int #endif would satisfy everybody. Is this acceptable for glibc? Yes. Though, please use CMPty

Re: Please fork soft-fp from libc

2007-06-14 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 08:07:32PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote: > I belive that by changing mentioned typedef line of soft-fp.h into > > #ifndef CMPtype > #define CMPtype int > #endif > > would satisfy everybody. Is this acceptable for glibc? Yes. Though, please use CMPtype not only for ret

Re: Please fork soft-fp from libc

2007-06-14 Thread Daniel Jacobowitz
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 08:07:32PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote: > > It can hardly be considered a glibc bug when GCC changed this incompatibly > > a year ago, up to GCC 4.1.x inclusive __eqtf2 etc. used SItype (i.e. int on > > all architectures glibc cares about). > > > > That said, as none of the rou

Re: Please fork soft-fp from libc

2007-06-14 Thread Uros Bizjak
Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 09:36:46AM -0700, Joe Buck wrote: The FSF has objected in the past to any discussions of forking glibc. RMS would (I believe) argue that what you're talking about is a glibc bug and glibc should fix it, we shouldn't fork the routine to work around

Re: Please fork soft-fp from libc

2007-06-14 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 09:36:46AM -0700, Joe Buck wrote: > The FSF has objected in the past to any discussions of forking glibc. RMS > would (I believe) argue that what you're talking about is a glibc bug and > glibc should fix it, we shouldn't fork the routine to work around it. It can hardly b

Re: Please fork soft-fp from libc

2007-06-14 Thread Richard Guenther
On 6/14/07, Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 06:10:52PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote: > There was no response from libc maintainers about changing the type of > soft-fp compares into CMPtype. This type should be defined to mode(word) > or at least we should be able to redef

Re: Please fork soft-fp from libc

2007-06-14 Thread Joe Buck
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 06:10:52PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote: > There was no response from libc maintainers about changing the type of > soft-fp compares into CMPtype. This type should be defined to mode(word) > or at least we should be able to redefine it outside the soft-fp, in > target depende

Re: Please fork soft-fp from libc

2007-06-14 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Uros Bizjak wrote: > There was no response from libc maintainers about changing the type of soft-fp > compares into CMPtype. This type should be defined to mode(word) or at least Take that matter with the glibc maintainers directly to RMS. > we should be able to redefine it

Please fork soft-fp from libc

2007-06-14 Thread Uros Bizjak
Hello! There was no response from libc maintainers about changing the type of soft-fp compares into CMPtype. This type should be defined to mode(word) or at least we should be able to redefine it outside the soft-fp, in target dependent sfp-target.h. As this is major obstacle in further devel