Hi,

No, without my patches the -msoft-float in cflags won't work.  The first problem
is that there is some assembly language fadd/fsub/etc instructions scattered about.
The second problem is that libc needs to have a full gcc fp emulator and it doesn't
have that.  My patches basically take care of both of those cases.

Thanks, I'd misunderstood Fredrick's suggestion.  My patches should allow the
non -msoft-float build to build as it builds now.

How do I submit my patches?

thanks!

cheers

bruce

On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 10:17:51AM -0500, Michael G. Schabert wrote:
> At 2:35 PM +0000 4/1/04, Bruce O'Neel wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >Thanks.  The problem with my fixes is that one builds two sets of binaries.
> >
> >In one case you build the normal binaries with inline f instructions.
> >In the other case you build them using -msoft-float to gcc and you have
> >no f instructions.
> 
> Right, but it would be beneficial for all if you *could* build those 
> 2 sets of binaries...without your patches, will just doing an 
> -msoft-float build actually build a working non-fp set? IIUC, your 
> patches allow the msoft-float to work, they don't force it. So there 
> would be no downside to them being included in the general release 
> (you just don't build with -msoft-float for the mainstream distro).
> 
> Frederick was suggesting that you get the source code changes 
> committed, not that we commit to your (non-fp) build type as the main 
> one.
> 
> Mike
> -- 
> Bikers don't *DO* taglines.

-- 
edoneel@sdf.lonestar.org
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org