This is the mail archive of the
libc-ports@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the libc-ports project.
Re: [PATCH] ARM: Use different linker path for hardfloat ABI
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Michael Hope <michael dot hope at linaro dot org>, =?x-unknown?q?Paulo_C=E9sar_Pereira_de_Andrade?= <paulo dot cesar dot pereira dot de dot andrade at gmail dot com>, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>, cross-distro at lists dot linaro dot org, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>, libc-ports at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 09:15:54 +0000 (UTC)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: Use different linker path for hardfloat ABI
- References: <4F7AC2E1.6010000@redhat.com> <4F7AD4CA.8010000@arm.com> <20120403110140.GG16117@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> <4F7B20D2.8060608@arm.com> <4F7B227F.7060905@redhat.com> <CANLjY-mDvnn8NcVQfYoUUGZD72GbH7mgYjxWOGOzLMiUwNyp2Q@mail.gmail.com> <20120403231133.GI16117@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> <CANLjY-=dGK05kzvHVkuo3o7p_iE1cxfTi0f+t-RMmGW+37WSEg@mail.gmail.com> <CAHAq8pE48=eY77adiKz3PEBapXwkPn6rjr3viMoUKpJq4x-G_A@mail.gmail.com> <CANLjY-k-sC86gmaTH+h-5o4_D2MOnQHB4ihhDhoPt1HbUzJp9w@mail.gmail.com> <20120404065412.GJ16117@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com>
On Wed, 4 Apr 2012, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> If the agreement is that arm 32-bit softfp really needs to be installable
> alongside 32-bit hardfp (and alongside aarch64), then IMHO it should do it
> like all other multilib ports (x86_64/i?86/x32, s390/s390x, ppc/ppc64, the
> various MIPS variants) and what FSB says, e.g. use
> /lib/ld-linux.so.3 and */lib dirs for softfp,
> /libhf/ld-linux.so.3 and */libhf dirs for hardfp and
> /lib64/ld-linux.so.3 and */lib64 dirs for aarch64, have 32-bit
> arm-linux-gnueabi gcc configured for softfp/hardfp multilib with
> MULTILIB_OSDIRNAMES, etc., have it configured in glibc, and for those that
> choose the Debian layout instead, if it is added somehow configurable into
> upstream gcc/glibc of course handle it similarly there. I just wonder why
> that hasn't been done 10 years ago and only needs doing now (of course,
> aarch64 is going to be new, talking now about the 32-bit softfp vs. hardfp).
Exactly. The default should follow the existing practice for other
architectures.
> One needs to wonder also why arm hasn't switched to 128-bit long double when
> all other mainstream architectures did (I hope at least aarch64 will use it
> by default).
The AArch64 ABI (generic, not GNU/Linux, and draft, still subject to
incompatible change) is public and used 128-bit long double the last time
I checked.
My presumption is that there has been no demand for long double wider than
double among 32-bit ARM users.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com