David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> writes: From: ni...@lysator.liu.se (Niels Möller) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 22:22:28 +0100 > Furthermore, gmp needs to be portable to non-glibc systems as well. We > have a "fat binary" machinery that tries to solve the same problem, but > in a more portable way. Choosing between using IFUNC or the portable > machinery at configure time sounds like it could be a lots of additional > complexity. I don't like this kind of logic. What is the point in creating significantly beneficial facilities like IFUNC if the greatest potential benefactors, such as libgmp, use straw-men like this to justify not using it? This just rude. Why don't you give valid arguments instead? We'd like to hear your opinion!
-- Torbjörn _______________________________________________ gmp-devel mailing list gmp-devel@gmplib.org http://gmplib.org/mailman/listinfo/gmp-devel
