From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from systemhalted (CPE0080c82c70ca.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [24.112.224.149]) by dsl2.external.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59DE14829 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2002 10:37:07 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 12:37:10 -0500 From: Carlos O'Donell To: John David Anglin Cc: willy@debian.org, parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org, tausq@debian.org, jbailey@nisa.net Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] glibc 2.3.1 - It's alive! - patches Message-ID: <20021111173710.GK8848@systemhalted> References: <20021111162656.GE8848@systemhalted> <200211111725.gABHPo5R002295@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <200211111725.gABHPo5R002295@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: > > I don't have a strong opinion on this. Probably, the routines should > be in libc. However, it's probably simple also to put them in libgcc > which contains some arithmetic operations. Some work in gcc would > be needed in any event to integrate the package. > I've just seen recent binutils ditatrabe about how we have copies of math libraries floating between glibc, gcc and the kernel. What do we gain from putting it in gcc? - ? What do we gain from putting it libc? - More frequent package updates? - IMO easier to debug? Why are there math functions in libgcc in the first place? Historical reasons? > > I'm pretty sure that MPFR library in GMP can emulate IEEE 754 arithmetic, > > though I could be wrong. > > I found the quad double package at the mpfr site. However, its double > double differs from the IEEE quad precision representation. A double double > is a representation using two IEEE doubles. This is fine as a separate > library but not the IEEE implementation we are looking for. > Okay. c.