Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 18:23:33 +0100 From: ardi <ardillasdelmonte@...il.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Feasability of patching libm with OS X 10.5.8 libc for IBM double-double in PPC Hi!! Disclaimer: I've read previous threads about long double support in musl, as well as web pages and I understand that musl won't support the IBM double-double, by design choice. I respect that decision (I've just started to use musl and I can only say I admire the quality and the design), and I'm not writing this as my opinion about that decision. Said this, I need IBM double-double in PowerPC targets (using clang as compiler), and I'd like to use musl because of its well written code. I'd also have the option of using the libc from OS X 10.5.8, which, AFAIK, is the latest libc from Apple with full support for PPC and PPC64 before they dropped them. This is libc 498.1.7 from the Apple open source site. However, building Darwin components was never easy (build instructions are most of the times missing, ask the PureDarwin people), so I *believe* I can get this libc working, but who knows... As a (perhaps) better solution, I thought that maybe I don't need to patch too many musl source files in order to get double-double working. If I'm understanding the situation correctly, the double-double implementation is actually generated by clang at compile code. The libc library should only need to provide the interface definitions (the definitions for mantissa bits, exponent bits, max values, etc...), and perhaps the implementation of some functions whose code wouldn't be generated by the compiler (not sure of this, as clang generates code for a set of functions through builtins in compiler_rt). Maybe there would be some issues with converting floating point to char string, but it would depend on what code you'd use for that conversion. So, as a personal patch (not pushing for official support, as I said above), do you consider it would be feasible to patch the necessary musl source files with contents from the OS X 10.5.8 libc? Do you believe it would be a matter of a reasonably small set of files, or rather an overwhelming task? And... do you know of any confidence test I could run for checking that it's working as expected? Thanks a lot!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ