From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-64745-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 11311 invoked by alias); 16 Dec 2002 20:03:56 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 11295 invoked from network); 16 Dec 2002 20:03:55 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (12.150.115.133)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Dec 2002 20:03:55 -0000
Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26])
	by mx2.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBGJxuN23709;
	Mon, 16 Dec 2002 14:59:56 -0500
Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15])
	by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBGK3jN23479;
	Mon, 16 Dec 2002 15:03:45 -0500
Received: from dhcp-172-16-25-153.sfbay.redhat.com (dhcp-172-16-25-153.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.25.153])
	by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBGK3jg14174;
	Mon, 16 Dec 2002 12:03:45 -0800
Subject: Re: Irix6 long doubles implemented wrong? 
	(27_io/ostream_inserter_arith)
From: Eric Christopher <echristo@redhat.com>
To: Rainer Orth <ro@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
Cc: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>,
   "Kaveh R. Ghazi"
	 <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu>, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org,
   gcc@gcc.gnu.org, libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org, oldham@codesourcery.com
In-Reply-To: <15870.4498.433704.555133@xayide.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
References: <200212142145.QAA25890@caip.rutgers.edu>
	<or8yypualb.fsf@free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> 
	<15870.4498.433704.555133@xayide.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 12:23:00 -0000
Message-Id: <1040069029.19627.32.camel@ghostwheel.ges.redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00919.txt.bz2


> understand).  This has caused so many people trouble and required
> platform-specific work-arounds in so many packages that we should get this
> right once and for all, even if this means non-interoperability with the
> older (broken) GCC implementation.
> 

I'm inclined to agree with Rainer here. If we're going to say that we
want to support the ABI that we do, we need to support as much as we
possibly can. If we can support 128-bit long doubles we should.

-eric

-- 
Yeah, I used to play basketball...