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: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- Cc: GT <tnggil at protonmail dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 15:19:10 +0000
- Subject: Re: [RESEND] [PATCH] PPC64: First in the series of patches implementing
- References: <CAGWvnykktWuDVLrMrOiLrGV9aOUUQNd8Bf1FiiWbQ_G-aXJyvQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, 28 Feb 2019, David Edelsohn wrote:
> Please stop creating an artificial chicken-and-egg problem. GCC does
It's not artificial. It's about verifying that the glibc changes actually
work as intended - in an area where the x86_64 patches, as originally
committed, *didn't* work as intended (the sincos ABI problem), for the
lack of such testing (so demonstrating that more testing is needed for
future libmvec architectures).
Right now, we have explicit statements from Tulio that the ABI *cannot* be
confirmed to be as desired, which makes it particularly clear that
integrating these patches would be premature.
> 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.
The glibc freeze for 2.30 starts on 1 July. GCC 9 probably branches in
late April. There's plenty of time for GCC changes to support this ABI to
get in before the next glibc freeze (and plenty of time for discussion of
the glibc patches, and testing with uncommitted GCC patches, before then).
Joseph S. Myers