copysignl.c

Bernhard Reutner-Fischer rep.dot.nop at gmail.com
Tue Mar 16 22:55:25 UTC 2010


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.. ;)


More information about the uClibc mailing list