From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: by oss.sgi.com id ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 09:27:35 -0700 Received: from ltc.ltc.com ([38.149.17.171]:46857 "HELO ltc.com") by oss.sgi.com with SMTP id ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 09:27:27 -0700 Received: from gw1.ltc.com (gw1.ltc.com [38.149.17.163]) by ltc.com (NTMail 3.03.0017/1.afdd) with ESMTP id ha314243 for ; Sat, 14 Oct 2000 12:33:11 -0400 Message-ID: <005e01c035fb$ef883b40$0701010a@ltc.com> From: "Bradley D. LaRonde" To: "Jay Carlson" , "Ralf Baechle" Cc: , , "Mike Klar" References: Subject: Re: stable binutils, gcc, glibc ... Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 12:29:33 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk Return-Path: X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips-outgoing ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jay Carlson" To: "Ralf Baechle" ; "Jay Carlson" Cc: ; ; "Mike Klar" Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2000 12:11 PM Subject: RE: stable binutils, gcc, glibc ... > > RALF: Do your softfp patches somehow cause problems with hardware fp machines? > > RALF: If not we could throw all things together. > No, no problems at all. They're just conditional on __HAVE_FPU__. Consider > ftp://ftp.place.org/pub/nop/linuxce/glibc-2.0.7-mips-softfloat.patch > submitted for the 2.0.6 branch. > > I'm not really the head toolchain builder for linux-vr these days---Mike > Klar has a set of unified patches he's been working on. I would prefer to use mipsel tools and libraries from SGI and have the linux-vr-specific stuff go away (with linux-vr just mirroring the SGI stuff). > Could somebody who already has signatures on file with the FSF add multilib > softfloat for mips-linux targets? I mean, we (linux-vr) *think* we're going > to be switching over to the FP emulator soon, but it hasn't happened yet. > Adding multilib is pretty harmless---I can't think of how it could screw up > the build for hardfp machines. > > The biggest reason I can think of *not* to make such a change is because > there are already plans in the works to create a mipselnofp-linux target to > more closely describe the situation. But I don't see any momentum behind > it, and I'd rather have either multilib or mipselnofp than the default case > of "linux-vr must ship patches and maintain separate .debs and .rpms that > contain a proper superset of mainline functionality". I think that optimal for me would be if the tools from SGI worked for both hard-float and soft-float, and we didn't have any linux-vr-specific tools. Regards, Brad From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <005e01c035fb$ef883b40$0701010a@ltc.com> From: "Bradley D. LaRonde" References: Subject: Re: stable binutils, gcc, glibc ... Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 12:29:33 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Return-Path: To: Jay Carlson , Ralf Baechle Cc: linux-mips@fnet.fr, linux-mips@oss.sgi.com, Mike Klar Message-ID: <20001014162933.PxyyyOY5fKdgdy1jwBl45t5vG7-MkKsZ_HmakHlCrU4@z> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jay Carlson" To: "Ralf Baechle" ; "Jay Carlson" Cc: ; ; "Mike Klar" Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2000 12:11 PM Subject: RE: stable binutils, gcc, glibc ... > > RALF: Do your softfp patches somehow cause problems with hardware fp machines? > > RALF: If not we could throw all things together. > No, no problems at all. They're just conditional on __HAVE_FPU__. Consider > ftp://ftp.place.org/pub/nop/linuxce/glibc-2.0.7-mips-softfloat.patch > submitted for the 2.0.6 branch. > > I'm not really the head toolchain builder for linux-vr these days---Mike > Klar has a set of unified patches he's been working on. I would prefer to use mipsel tools and libraries from SGI and have the linux-vr-specific stuff go away (with linux-vr just mirroring the SGI stuff). > Could somebody who already has signatures on file with the FSF add multilib > softfloat for mips-linux targets? I mean, we (linux-vr) *think* we're going > to be switching over to the FP emulator soon, but it hasn't happened yet. > Adding multilib is pretty harmless---I can't think of how it could screw up > the build for hardfp machines. > > The biggest reason I can think of *not* to make such a change is because > there are already plans in the works to create a mipselnofp-linux target to > more closely describe the situation. But I don't see any momentum behind > it, and I'd rather have either multilib or mipselnofp than the default case > of "linux-vr must ship patches and maintain separate .debs and .rpms that > contain a proper superset of mainline functionality". I think that optimal for me would be if the tools from SGI worked for both hard-float and soft-float, and we didn't have any linux-vr-specific tools. Regards, Brad