[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: 2.3.1-14



At Sun, 2 Mar 2003 13:59:42 +0100,
Guido Guenther wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 09:08:57PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> > OK, I review your patch, and found that:
> > 
> > 	1. mips part should declare extern float __floatdisf
> > 	2. alpha part lacks Makefile and Versions files.
> > 	3. ia64 part does not declare __divsi3 __modsi3 __udivsi3
> > 	  __umodsi3.  other declarations (__ia64_save_stack_nonlocal,
> > 	  etc.) are not needed, I post it later.
> When did you grab that? I updated the patch just before announcing it to
> the list. It fixes 1 & 2 and removes ia64 since you said you'll handle
> that.

I grabed it yesterday...  Now I check it and it's OK, thanks!


I prepared for you and debian-glibc yesterday about my patch:
OK, for ia64, I'm preparing it.

> > I fixed 1/2. compilation is succeeded on both ia64 and alpha.
> > Changed files are sysdeps/alpha/Dist, sysdeps/alpha/Makefile,
> > sysdeps/mips/libgcc-compat.c.  I put fixed version at:
> > 
> > 	http://megaela.gotom.jp/~gotom/patch/debian/glibc/libgcc-compat-all.dpatch
> > 
> > I would like to commit it, so could you review and update it?
> 
> You have:
>  +extern floatdisf (int64_t);
> in the mips part but it should be:
>  +extern float floatdisf (int64_t);

Oops!  Yes, it should be :-)

> I wonder why the Redhat glibc removes all the assembly and uses C
> functions instead. Any ideas?
> 
> > BTW, IA64 missing symbols (__divsi3 __modsi3 __udivsi3 __umodsi3) 
> > can be resolved like:
> > 
> > 	extern long __divsi3 (long, long) attribute_hidden;
> > 	long INTUSE (__divsi3) (long x, long y)
> > 	{
> > 	  return __divsi3 (x, y);
> > 	}
> > 	symbol_version (INTUSE (__divdi3), __divdi3, GLIBC_2.2);
> > 
> > I don't add them yet, but should we add?
> I'd rather use something like int64_t instead of long like we do for the
> other archs but that's cosmetics.

Thanks, please do like int64_t.  BTW, is not "attribute_hidden" part
necessary?

Regards,
-- gotom



Reply to: