Roland McGrath wrote:
>>* If GCC 4.1.0 does not support the new ABI, but GCC 4.1.1 does support
>>that, would it be possible to activate the support on the GLIBC 2.4 branch?
>
> This is not an option. When glibc 2.4 is released, the GLIBC_2.4 version
> set will never change again. Each platform
> * If GCC 4.1.0 does not support the new ABI, but GCC 4.1.1 does support
> that, would it be possible to activate the support on the GLIBC 2.4 branch?
This is not an option. When glibc 2.4 is released, the GLIBC_2.4 version
set will never change again. Each platform will either change by the fi
Roland McGrath wrote:
> I told those maintainers that glibc 2.4 would not support a new long double
> ABI for each platform unless GCC 4.1 as released could compile that glibc.
> The glibc sources make it easy enough to switch a platform down the line
> (for the glibc 2.5 ABI, whenever that next r
I hope I can clarify the situation. Planning and communication surely
could have been much better, and as the person who coordinated the efforts
that were made, I can be blamed for what we did and when we did it. glibc
has lacked the manpower to be as organized as we would like to be, and
given w
> I would like to understand better why and how this GCC 4.1 requirement
> for adding 128bit long double support came about.
Although the lack of 128-bit long-double support has been discussed
on and off for sometime on the parisc-linux list, I hadn't realized
this was now a requirement for GCC 4.
>
> I would like to understand better why and how this GCC 4.1 requirement
> for adding 128bit long double support came about. Maybe better
> understanding how this "mistake" came to happen will better understand
> why GCC 4.1 will be delayed because of this change?
>
> What I am looking for is
