From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13659 invoked by alias); 9 Apr 2008 13:26:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 13648 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Apr 2008 13:26:46 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (HELO fg-out-1718.google.com) (72.14.220.157) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:26:26 +0000 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id d23so1924674fga.28 for ; Wed, 09 Apr 2008 06:26:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.86.79.19 with SMTP id c19mr494113fgb.16.1207747582147; Wed, 09 Apr 2008 06:26:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scientist-2.mobile.usilu.net ( [195.176.176.226]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 12sm190893fgg.6.2008.04.09.06.26.21 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 09 Apr 2008 06:26:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <47FCC3FC.5080704@gnu.org> Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:37:00 -0000 From: Paolo Bonzini User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Macintosh/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Edelsohn CC: Mark Mitchell , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [ping] Re: RFA: Improve 128-bit long double configure test References: <20071115192757.GA7557@caradoc.them.org> <20080306203322.GA13983@caradoc.them.org> <47FC0BA9.2060403@codesourcery.com> <200804090150.m391oM5u029832@makai.watson.ibm.com> <47FC562B.5040708@codesourcery.com> <200804091235.m39CZKNY031812@makai.watson.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <200804091235.m39CZKNY031812@makai.watson.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-04/txt/msg00790.txt.bz2 David Edelsohn wrote: >>>>>> Mark Mitchell writes: > > Mark> If we make this change in 4.4, by the > Mark> time it's released, most systems will have the new GLIBC anyhow. > > Isn't this the opposite argument that was made about the x86 flag > bit: people will install newer GCC on older systems. Not really, the point there was people will run things compiled with a new GCC on any kind of system. Here you have two ABIs, so you spot at once if something's wrong with the compilation. > If you want to announce that GCC 4.4 has terminated support for > older versions of GLIBC on all targets, that is fine. If you want to say > that GCC 4.4 cannot automatically detect the correct configuration for > powerpc, sparc, s390, and alpha, that is not fine. I see your point on this though -- just wanted to point out. Paolo