On Wed, 4 Apr 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> If the agreement is that arm 32-bit softfp really needs to be installable
> alongside 32-bit hardfp (and alongside aarch64), then IMHO it should do it
> like all other multilib ports (x86_64/i?86/x32, s390/s390x, ppc/ppc64, the
> various MIPS variants) and what FSB says, e.g. use
> /lib/ld-linux.so.3 and */lib dirs for softfp,
> /libhf/ld-linux.so.3 and */libhf dirs for hardfp and
> /lib64/ld-linux.so.3 and */lib64 dirs for aarch64, have 32-bit
> arm-linux-gnueabi gcc configured for softfp/hardfp multilib with
> MULTILIB_OSDIRNAMES, etc., have it configured in glibc, and for those that
> choose the Debian layout instead, if it is added somehow configurable into
> upstream gcc/glibc of course handle it similarly there. I just wonder why
> that hasn't been done 10 years ago and only needs doing now (of course,
> aarch64 is going to be new, talking now about the 32-bit softfp vs. hardfp).
Exactly. The default should follow the existing practice for other
> One needs to wonder also why arm hasn't switched to 128-bit long double when
> all other mainstream architectures did (I hope at least aarch64 will use it
> by default).
The AArch64 ABI (generic, not GNU/Linux, and draft, still subject to
incompatible change) is public and used 128-bit long double the last time
My presumption is that there has been no demand for long double wider than
double among 32-bit ARM users.
Joseph S. Myers