> Ah!  Misunderstood what you were saying.  Yes, this is quite feasible,
> especially since all those functions could easily be written as assembler
> stubs.
>
> > If you're going to arrange to make it possible to link -msoft-float
> > and -mhard-float code together then things will obviously get painful.
> >  This won't work at present (they maintain FP exception stuff in
> > different places if nothing else), and I don't think it's a terribly
> > important thing to have.

Can you just clarify what the upshot of these changes would be for me?
Are we saying that:

	1) To get FPA support, the whole world would need compiling
-mhard-float (as I understand is the case now).

	2) To get FPA support, a modified libc would be needed with
assembler stubs (as is theoretically possible now).

	3) Ultimately, all FPA support will disappear.

Cheers,

David.