This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [RESEND] [PATCH] PPC64: First in the series of patches implementing
- From: David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, GT <tnggil at protonmail dot com>
- Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 09:48:48 -0500
- Subject: Re: [RESEND] [PATCH] PPC64: First in the series of patches implementing
>>>>> Joseph Myers writes:
> I don't see any evidence that the ABI has yet been agreed by all relevant
> That completely defeats the point of such a test which is to verify that
> an actual vectorized call works with the actual header you are adding -
> not to repeat the verification of manual _Z* calls which is already
> adequately done by the glibc testsuite. That means you need to have a
> compiler which implements this vector ABI. If suitable GCC patches are
> posted to gcc-patches with the stated intent of applying them to GCC trunk
> after GCC 9 has branched, you could use those for testing the glibc
> changes (although I think we should avoid merging the changes into glibc
> until the relevant support is in GCC and you can name the corresponding
> GCC version in the NEWS entry - note that GCC 9 should branch well before
> the next glibc release freeze).
Please stop creating an artificial chicken-and-egg problem. GCC does
not need to implement the vector functionality before it can be merged
into GLIBC. One project needs to go first. An implementation in
GLIBC that will be leveraged by a future release of GCC is fine.
Because of the long pipeline for GLIBC to propagate into Linux
distributions, an early GLIBC implementation is very appropriate.