Gerald Pfeiffer wrote: > Personally, and explicitly not speaking for my employer, I fully agree > with Andrew Pinski that this kind of change is not appropriate for GCC > 4.1 at this point in the release cycle. > > It is clearly against our development model and negatively impacts our > schedule and the stabilization work done by many in the last months and > was not even raised on the steering committee (which I would consider a > requirement in such a case).
I'm not haüppy about the timing of this either. However, given the circumstances, I'd considered it best for s390 to provide long double support with 4.1 -- the patch I've approved doesn't change the default, and should be low risk to code not built with -mlong-double-128. The alternative -- either having a glibc not buildable with any released GCC, or else having s390 unable to participate in the glibc long double support together with all other affected platforms, would in my opinion be worse than accepting this risk for 4.1. I had been under the impression that the release manager was willing to leave this choice to the affected platform maintainers, and the steering committee was not involved. If I was mistaken in this, I'm sorry ... Bye, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand Linux on zSeries Development [EMAIL PROTECTED]
