Re: [PING] [PR other/70945] Handle function_glibc_finite_math in offloading

2016-06-08 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 03:47:54PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > I'm not saying newlib in general, let newlib do whatever they want, but > > I'm talking about offloading port(s) of newlib, which IMHO should provide > > translation layer from the host headers to the offloading target functions.

Re: [PING] [PR other/70945] Handle function_glibc_finite_math in offloading

2016-06-08 Thread Thomas Schwinge
Hi! On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 08:54:10 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:11:18PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > > On Fri, 3 Jun 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > I think it would be better to just add this support to newlib. > > > > That suggestion doesn't really make sense to me.

Re: [PING] [PR other/70945] Handle function_glibc_finite_math in offloading

2016-06-06 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:11:18PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Fri, 3 Jun 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 04:44:15PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > > Ping. > > > > I think it would be better to just add this support to newlib. > > That suggestion

Re: [PING] [PR other/70945] Handle function_glibc_finite_math in offloading

2016-06-06 Thread Joseph Myers
On Fri, 3 Jun 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 04:44:15PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > Hi! > > > > Ping. > > I think it would be better to just add this support to newlib. That suggestion doesn't really make sense to me. Why should newlib be expected to follow the sam

Re: [PING] [PR other/70945] Handle function_glibc_finite_math in offloading

2016-06-03 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 04:44:15PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Hi! > > Ping. I think it would be better to just add this support to newlib. Or are they opposed to that for whatever reason? Jakub

[PING] [PR other/70945] Handle function_glibc_finite_math in offloading

2016-06-03 Thread Thomas Schwinge
Hi! Ping. On Sat, 21 May 2016 17:59:17 +0200, I wrote: > As discussed in "Offloading: compatibility > of target and offloading toolchains", there are situations where we have > to do more work to ensure compatibility between target and offloading > toolchains. > > T