On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:47:13PM +0100, Yann E. MORIN wrote: >Did you mean the above gcc thread, maybe?
above even, indeed. Please accept my apologies, RL is cruelly harsh to me ATM. > >> And no, >> emitting libcalls to math functions and not linking against libm is just >> a gcc bug and not a call to make libc a superset of libm > >Agreed. But alas, still no fix I could see (but I can be quite blind at >times). heh ;) > >> I've locally changed that for good (and better, size-wise) for shared >> setups since they (end up) want(ing) IEEE m anyway in usual setups. > >Care to elaborate, please? Just that. Cutting off lgcc in favour of lm. My notion of sane dynamic ppc soft-fp setup, but apparently diverges from rest. Local simulator-testing only thing which thus is completely unrelated and of no interrest at all, i still assume. >> default sanity is imposed by 405 soft-fp mmu C99, to keep your eyebrows >> down. > >Sorry, I missed that completely. Care to explain a bit more, please? That's what i use as default simulator target for ppc (i don't have a real target, unfortunately, OTOH since i don't have a target i can get away just guesstimating in this respect.. ;) _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
