Mark Mitchell wrote:
That message contains an IEEE floating-point emulation library, like
fp-bit.c. Howeve, the performance is considerably better; Joseph
measured against fp-bit.c with a modern compiler, and ieeelib.c is about
10-15% better than the current code on EEMBC on a PowerPC 440.
For
Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> Argh... I've grepped all over my harddrive, but can't find it. But
> I *am* sure I sent a mail to rms explaining the whole thing, and he
> responded positively. Perhaps he can remember the conversation?
Thanks for looking. I can ask him, if that route looks best. At th
BTW, here is the original thread I had started:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2003-04/msg00695.html
> > There was a thread discussing all this, when I was interested in doing
> > the work. I mailed rms directly, and he said it was ok to use the
> > glibc bits in gcc regardless of the LGPL/GPL dispar
Aldy Hernandez wrote:
> There was a thread discussing all this, when I was interested in doing
> the work. I mailed rms directly, and he said it was ok to use the
> glibc bits in gcc regardless of the LGPL/GPL disparity.
Do you happen to have a pointer, or a copy of that message? If that
route
> "Mark" == Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Richard Henderson wrote:
>> The glibc bits handle ieee quad format, whereas I don't believe
>> that Torbajorn's does. I don't recall if Torbajorn's code allows
>> for emulation of all rounding modes or exception bits.
> I believe i
> "Richard" == Richard Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 12:42:36PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>> RTH is listed as the author of a lot of those bits, so perhaps he knows
>> more?
> The glibc bits handle ieee quad format, whereas I don't believe
> that Torba
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:58:32PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> (Incidentally, why does libgcc-std.ver not include __unordxf2 and
> __unordtf2 although it has __unordsf2 and __unorddf2?)
I'm sure it wasn't intentional.
r~
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > So, we're considering doing what it takes to get ieeelib.c into GCC, or,
> > perhaps, borrowing some of its ideas for fp-bit.c.
>
> Very nice! Don't forget the few posts with bug-fixes over the
> years
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> So, we're considering doing what it takes to get ieeelib.c into GCC, or,
> perhaps, borrowing some of its ideas for fp-bit.c.
Very nice! Don't forget the few posts with bug-fixes over the
years from someone or other. (Yes, actually posted here on a
gcc
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 11:29:17PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> >Well, I've been talking about doing this for so long that I feel I must
> >take this as a challenge... I will give it a shot.
>
> All that I've done so far is to look at config.gcc and shudder at what a
> mess it would be to sep
Well, I've been talking about doing this for so long that I feel I must
take this as a challenge... I will give it a shot.
All that I've done so far is to look at config.gcc and shudder at what a
mess it would be to separate libgcc. But really it is not necessary,
and one could keep #includ
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 13:01 -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 12:42:36PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > RTH is listed as the author of a lot of those bits, so perhaps he knows
> > more?
>
> The glibc bits handle ieee quad format, whereas I don't believe
> that Torbajorn's
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 01:01:23PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 12:42:36PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> > RTH is listed as the author of a lot of those bits, so perhaps he knows
> > more?
>
> The glibc bits handle ieee quad format, whereas I don't believe
> that Torba
Richard Henderson wrote:
> The glibc bits handle ieee quad format, whereas I don't believe
> that Torbajorn's does. I don't recall if Torbajorn's code allows
> for emulation of all rounding modes or exception bits.
I believe it does not.
> But I suspect that Torbajorn's code compiles down small
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 12:42:36PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> RTH is listed as the author of a lot of those bits, so perhaps he knows
> more?
The glibc bits handle ieee quad format, whereas I don't believe
that Torbajorn's does. I don't recall if Torbajorn's code allows
for emulation of all ro
Anthony Green wrote:
> I did some benchmarking a year or two ago with Torbjorn's library and
> found good results as well. However, there was pushback on merging this
> in from the GCC hackers I spoke with because they saw glibc's FP
> emulation library as an even better solution, and implied the
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 18:05 -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> That message contains an IEEE floating-point emulation library, like
> fp-bit.c. Howeve, the performance is considerably better; Joseph
> measured against fp-bit.c with a modern compiler, and ieeelib.c is about
> 10-15% better than the curr
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 11:41:24AM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Richard Henderson wrote:
>
> > I'd been hoping that someone would move libgcc to toplevel, and
> > perhaps rearrange fp emulation after that.
>
> I'd really like to see libgcc move too; is anyone actively working on
> that? (We're
Richard Henderson wrote:
> I'd been hoping that someone would move libgcc to toplevel, and
> perhaps rearrange fp emulation after that.
I'd really like to see libgcc move too; is anyone actively working on
that? (We're not...)
So, I'm afraid we're going to end up going in the other order, unle
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 06:05:34PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> That message contains an IEEE floating-point emulation library, like
> fp-bit.c. Howeve, the performance is considerably better; Joseph
> measured against fp-bit.c with a modern compiler, and ieeelib.c is about
> 10-15% better than t
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 06:23:27PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Joe Buck wrote:
>
> > Well, the problem is that you're raising a legal technicality, and legal
> > technicalities are up to the FSF. Maybe they'll have no problem,
> > especially if Swox AB basically is Torbjorn. If there is a prob
In his original message, Torbjorn indicated that Swox AB (the company of
which he is CEO) donated the code, and the old copyright file had an
entry for Torbjorn, though not Swox AB.
Well, the problem is that you're raising a legal technicality, and legal
technicalities are up to the FSF. Mayb
David Edelsohn wrote:
> Swox AB does have a copyright assignment on file, so GCC is free
> to use ieeelib.c.
Great. Thanks for double-checking!
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(916) 791-8304
> Mark Mitchell writes:
Mark> In his original message, Torbjorn indicated that Swox AB (the company of
Mark> which he is CEO) donated the code, and the old copyright file had an
Mark> entry for Torbjorn, though not Swox AB. I've contacted Torbjorn, and
Mark> he'd still like to see ieeelib.c i
Joe Buck wrote:
> Well, the problem is that you're raising a legal technicality, and legal
> technicalities are up to the FSF. Maybe they'll have no problem,
> especially if Swox AB basically is Torbjorn. If there is a problem, and
> Torbjorn is still CEO of Swox AB, it should be no problem (oth
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 06:05:34PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Back in 1999, Torbjorn Granlund posted:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/1999-07n/msg00553.html
>
> That message contains an IEEE floating-point emulation library, like
> fp-bit.c. Howeve, the performance is considerably better; Josep
Back in 1999, Torbjorn Granlund posted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/1999-07n/msg00553.html
That message contains an IEEE floating-point emulation library, like
fp-bit.c. Howeve, the performance is considerably better; Joseph
measured against fp-bit.c with a modern compiler, and ieeelib.c is about
27 matches
Mail list logo
