Re: Future of libquadmath and glibc 2.26 (Re: statically compile in libquadmath)

On 8/8/2017 4:17 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: On Tue, 8 Aug 2017, Joel Sherrill wrote: This may be a stupid question but with the focus of this discussionon glibc, what does this all mean for non-glibc targets? Well, Jakub recently updated parts of libquadmath from glibc (only the functions

Re: Future of libquadmath and glibc 2.26 (Re: statically compile in libquadmath)

On Tue, 8 Aug 2017, Joel Sherrill wrote: > This may be a stupid question but with the focus of this > discussionon glibc, what does this all mean for non-glibc > targets? Well, Jakub recently updated parts of libquadmath from glibc (only the functions coming from the ldbl-128 directory, and

Re: Future of libquadmath and glibc 2.26 (Re: statically compile in libquadmath)

On 8/8/2017 12:44 PM, Joseph Myers wrote: On Tue, 8 Aug 2017, Janne Blomqvist wrote: On a semi-related note, it seems the recently released glibc 2.26 contains quad math functions. Does that mean we should change to use those in preference to libquadmath when available? I suppose libquadmath

Re: Future of libquadmath and glibc 2.26 (Re: statically compile in libquadmath)

On Tue, 8 Aug 2017, Janne Blomqvist wrote: > On a semi-related note, it seems the recently released glibc 2.26 > contains quad math functions. Does that mean we should change to use > those in preference to libquadmath when available? I suppose > libquadmath cannot be deprecated either, since

Future of libquadmath and glibc 2.26 (Re: statically compile in libquadmath)

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 3:10 PM, Manfred Schwarb wrote: > Am 27.07.2017 um 15:24 schrieb Manfred Schwarb: >> Hi, >> >> there is the long standing annoyance that it is very hard to >> statically compile in libquadmath. >> See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46539 and