From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from baldric (baldric.uwo.ca [129.100.10.225]) by dsl2.external.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB98F4840 for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 13:08:28 -0600 (MDT) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:04:30 -0400 From: Carlos O'Donell To: John David Anglin Cc: dave.anglin@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca, parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] fenv laid to rest, 50% done porting dbl-64 to ldbl-64, no testing yet. Message-ID: <20031020190430.GF32666@systemhalted> References: <20031020173440.GE32666@systemhalted> <200310201749.h9KHnHQ3001830@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <200310201749.h9KHnHQ3001830@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca> Sender: parisc-linux-admin@lists.parisc-linux.org Errors-To: parisc-linux-admin@lists.parisc-linux.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: parisc-linux developers list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 01:49:17PM -0400, John David Anglin wrote: > > Yes, I have already taken this into account. Thanks for all the help > > with spec interpretation. I appreciate the feedback. We pass all the > > fenv tests in glibc, but still fail the long double support. I'm about > > 50% done porting dbl-64 to ldbl-64, might get done in the next few > > weeks. It would finally give us a functioning long double :) > > I think we should hold off on implementing this until we get a final > decision from HP on whether they will release their quadlib or not. Noted. I have reordered my hacking queue. a- Generate new testing deb's for glibc = Includes providing debian with a new .dpatch (1-2 days) b- Fix _r_debug.r_map loader problems. (Timeline unknown) c- Finish light-weight kernel syscalls for atomic ops (A few weeks) d- Continue implementing ldbl-64 based on dbl-64. = The first 50% was a "test the waters" patch. = It looks *very* feasible and easy to test. = Function renaming, rewriting, casting, and mangling. (A few weeks) In parallel with my usual upstream pushes. If HP gets up off their haunches before I get to "d-" then they win :), else I will continue my work on ldbl-64. I *will* hold-off on the release of such an implementation in favour of the 128-bit ldbl. I know full well that once we release the ldbl-64 it will become our ABI. c.