This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Minimum floating-point requirements


On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:59 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 05:21:29PM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>> But I think this is a matter of imposing a decision about the PowerPC
>> "ecosystem" (see <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html>) on
>> glibc as much as imposing anything from glibc on anything else.  And the
>> ultimate question is about the GNU system rather than that "ecosystem".
>
> Indeed. I see this issue as PowerPC folks imposing their legacy
> brokenness on everybody else (libc and application developers who have
> to work around it).

Every ABI has peculiarities and historical baggage. One of the
strengths of the GNU Toolchain has been its acceptance of and
accommodation of many different ISAs, ABIs and OSes.  That is one of
the benefits that lead to its early success, providing the foundation
for GNU/Linux and all that followed. If the GNU Toolchain does not
want to support target-specific dependencies or only wants to support
it for a chosen set of targets or for a subset of currently pervasive
targets, then it will create a monoculture that is ripe for
disruption.

Also, I find it ironic that I am trying to discuss the imposition of
conformance on an ABI, and I am referred to a document trying to
impose conformance on my language.

Thanks, David


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]