This is the mail archive of the
libc-ports@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the libc-ports project.
Re: Ping Re: PowerPC E500 port
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Roland McGrath <roland at redhat dot com>
- Cc: libc-ports at sourceware dot org, sjmunroe at us dot ibm dot com
- Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 11:51:44 +0000 (UTC)
- Subject: Re: Ping Re: PowerPC E500 port
- References: <20070511084226.A675F1F8512@magilla.localdomain>
On Fri, 11 May 2007, Roland McGrath wrote:
> I'm really not convinced that the *to*fix symbols belong in libc at all.
> Why aren't they just in some other little library you can provide with gcc?
Different trade-offs are appropriate for users of different C libraries;
newlib and uClibc use a different implementation that's smaller but less
accurate. Existing practice regarding ABI-specified functions when they
aren't of the nature of functions generally included in libgcc puts them
in libc (e.g., the ARM EABI functions in glibc).
> As for the soft-fp symbols, what's with the GLIBC_2.5?
> If it's new now, it's GLIBC_2.6.
Existing practice with users of this code has both the GLIBC_2.3.3 and
GLIBC_2.5 symbols. Existing practice for development of new ports is to
develop the code (using versions current at that time) and get it in use
among users of that hardware, then merge in with the same symbol versions
as are in use in the field (so ColdFire was merged with GLIBC_2.4 version
although that merge was just after 2.5 branched).
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com