This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [rfc] alpha-linux changing to 128-bit long double
- From: Steve Munroe <sjmunroe at us dot ibm dot com>
- To: Richard Henderson <rth at twiddle dot net>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 14:37:45 -0600
- Subject: Re: [rfc] alpha-linux changing to 128-bit long double
Richard Henderson wrote on 03/06/2004 11:58:26 PM:
> So I'm thinking that I'd like to finally get around to changing to
> 128-bit long double for alpha-linux. I'm undecided how to go about
> doing this though.
>
> The math routines would be easy to version, but things like printf
> definitely aren't. Because of that, I was thinking that perhaps
> it might be best to just increment the soname to libc.so.6.2. Which
> would be a good opportunity to get rid of some awful compatibility
> code in the alpha-linux glibc bits.
I am also working on -mlong-double-128 support for powerpc64. And I can
see how versioning vfprintf (etc.) would be painful, but I would like some
help understanding the implications of versioning a whole library.
I assume that with this approach distro's must ship two versions of each
library (i.e. libm.so.6 and libm.so.6.1)? Just for libc/libm or the full
set of libs?
I assume that changing shlib-versions is the first step. Something like:
powerpc64.*-linux libm=6.1 GLIBC_2.3.4
powerpc64.*-linux libc=6.1 GLIBC_2.3.4
But what other changes are needed? Does this replace all the SHLIB_COMPAT
changes that would otherwise be required?
Steven J. Munroe
Linux on Power Toolchain Architect
IBM Corporation, Linux Technology Center