arm "neon"

Torbjorn Granlund tg at
Mon Jan 14 23:19:40 CET 2013

David Miller <davem at> writes:

  From: nisse at (Niels Möller)
  Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 22:22:28 +0100
  > Furthermore, gmp needs to be portable to non-glibc systems as well. We
  > have a "fat binary" machinery that tries to solve the same problem, but
  > in a more portable way. Choosing between using IFUNC or the portable
  > machinery at configure time sounds like it could be a lots of additional
  > complexity.
  I don't like this kind of logic.
  What is the point in creating significantly beneficial facilities like
  IFUNC if the greatest potential benefactors, such as libgmp, use
  straw-men like this to justify not using it?
This just rude.  Why don't you give valid arguments instead?  We'd like
to hear your opinion!


More information about the gmp-devel mailing list