From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id BA06F3858404; Wed, 11 Oct 2023 14:07:21 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org BA06F3858404 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1697033241; bh=41VCwU8HOUPLKiY2+7D8GeT0npzZiWe1+XZpXcchNpE=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=bUVNUglpj0/rkNfunO3O4nD8xD1IEKyoUKOEmfgEZhlVYaVp5Kq9b8+9mBmsVq7Ts zMXhUiTiuHjcT7/VGxDw1VcGOBE+jTaiCf3ji1jGWHH8eYBABFPx3aPFi8G9UbA2n1 eYtoVrb6Kn7ScLcRSBVxQbMlYvJ7UqATPRQWHeX8= From: "adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org" To: glibc-bugs@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug libc/30963] [RISC-V] glibc doesn't support lp64f abi-variant Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2023 14:07:20 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: glibc X-Bugzilla-Component: libc X-Bugzilla-Version: 2.38 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D30963 Adhemerval Zanella changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |adhemerval.zanella at lina= ro dot o | |rg --- Comment #1 from Adhemerval Zanella --- My understanding is it would require another, since single-float argument a= re passed in register and double as soft-float (in integer register). And a n= ew ABI is another permutation to build, check, verify, test which adds a maintainability burden (especially now with different extensions adding more build permutations, like zba, zbb, zbs, and even XTheadBb). Do you really = want to continue on the old ABIs road (like MIPS) and have multiple ABIs and extensions to maintain? --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=