Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Richard --
|
| The GCC SC has been discussing libgcc-math. RMS says that he will need
| to consider the issue, and that he has other things he wants to do
| first. So, I'm afraid that we can't give you a good timeline for a
| r
Richard --
The GCC SC has been discussing libgcc-math. RMS says that he will need
to consider the issue, and that he has other things he wants to do
first. So, I'm afraid that we can't give you a good timeline for a
resolution of the question, but I can say that some progress is
On 8/4/06, Sashan Govender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi
Is there a specification that describes a set of routines for
libgcc-math? I read through previous emails on this topic and it seems
that it has been removed from head. I'd like to contribute but not
sure what direction to go i
Hi
Is there a specification that describes a set of routines for
libgcc-math? I read through previous emails on this topic and it seems
that it has been removed from head. I'd like to contribute but not
sure what direction to go in. Is there a specific branch that needs
checking out?
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 02:57:19PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>Issues of providing both standard conforming and target optimized
>math runtimes for GCC were discussed.
Thanks for posting this. Since I wasn't able to attend the summit this
year, I really appreciate seeing summaries like this.
Issues of providing both standard conforming and target optimized
math runtimes for GCC were discussed.
Interested parties are various frontends (C++, Fortran, Ada) that
are required to provide support similar to C99 from their runtime
and like to be able to fall back to a standard conforming imp
> Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | As far as I understand we (GCC) have to develop our own codes
> | independently of glibc unless RMS agrees to have copies/forks of
> | glibc code in GCC (this includes license changes to GPL + libgcc exception
> | like in this case). What is fin
Richard Guenther wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Following RMS request of removing source copies of other projects I
> asked him if he considers it ok to have copies of the generic math
> transcendentals routines of glibc in libgcc-math and to distribute
> them under GPL + libgcc exception c
Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| As far as I understand we (GCC) have to develop our own codes
| independently of glibc unless RMS agrees to have copies/forks of
| glibc code in GCC (this includes license changes to GPL + libgcc exception
| like in this case). What is fine a
entals routines of glibc in libgcc-math and to distribute
> | them under GPL + libgcc exception clause license. He denied that
> | request and so, after doing the emergency-removal of the wrongly
> | licensed double parts from libgcc-math I am going to remove the float
> | parts as well. T
Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Hi,
|
| Following RMS request of removing source copies of other projects I
| asked him if he considers it ok to have copies of the generic math
| transcendentals routines of glibc in libgcc-math and to distribute
| them under GPL + libgcc exc
Hi,
Following RMS request of removing source copies of other projects I
asked him if he considers it ok to have copies of the generic math
transcendentals routines of glibc in libgcc-math and to distribute
them under GPL + libgcc exception clause license. He denied that
request and so, after
It is my pleasure to announce that the steering committee has
appointed Richard Guenther libgcc-math maintainer.
Please adjust the MAINTAINERS file accordingly, Richard, and
Happy Hacking!
Gerald
CTED] otool -Lv test
> test:
> /opt/gccmath/lib/libgcc-math.0.dylib (compatibility version
> 1.0.0, current version 1.0.0)
> time stamp 1138831883 Wed Feb 1 14:11:23 2006
> /usr/lib/libSystem.B.dylib (compatibility version 1.0.0,
> current version 88.1.5
Awesome.
With trunk, your 3 previous patches, my config/darwin.h patch for the
link line, and your further patch for visibility:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /opt/gccmath/bin/gcc -o test test.c -msselibm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] otool -Lv test
test:
/opt/gccmath/lib/libgcc-math.0.dylib (compatibility
On 2/1/06, Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/1/06, Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Is it intentional that these functions have global visibility and
> > > interfere with functions declared and implemented by the system
> > > libraries? If not, can they be compili
On 2/1/06, Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Is it intentional that these functions have global visibility and
> > interfere with functions declared and implemented by the system
> > libraries? If not, can they be compilied with hidden visibility?
>
> Yes (I originally tried to "see wh
Is it intentional that these functions have global visibility and
interfere with functions declared and implemented by the system
libraries? If not, can they be compilied with hidden visibility?
Yes (I originally tried to "see what happens if we use the glibc
routines", then I shared the c
<http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-02/msg00057.html>
With trunk and those set of patches, x86 Darwin bootstraps and builds
libgcc-math. However, there are some issues actually using it:
alias:/tmp ssen$ cat test.c
#include
#include
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
do
19 matches
Mail list logo
