Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken!gauss.llnl.gov!casey
From: casey@gauss.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: X11R4 libraries and -f68881 switch
Message-ID: <48765@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
Date: 15 Feb 90 19:42:41 GMT
References: <9002151158.AA02566@Larry.McRCIM.McGill.EDU>
Sender: usenet@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV
Reply-To: casey@gauss.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom)
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Lines: 29

| From: mouse@LARRY.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU (der Mouse)
| 
| > By the way, it should be noted that if you're compiling with GCC, the
| > GCC equivalent of -f68881 (-m68881) is the default.  When I started
| > getting complaints from people about this after compiling R3 with GCC
| > last year and requests that I ``fix'' the problem by recompiling with
| > -fsoft (-msoft-float in GCC), I told them they were fixing the wrong
| > problem.  The problem was their workstations were missing floating
| > point hardware.  Given that the MC68881RC16C is only about $125 last
| > time I looked, it's by far the most preferable solution unless you're
| > a total pauper.
| 
| (I'd recommend -fswitch.  (I don't know the gcc equivalent.))
| 
| This strikes me as a somewhat arrogant attitude.  There are several
| perfectly good reasons why the user may not be able to do this.
| 
| [[And much more flamage and non-linear verbage.]]

  Jesus man, chill out.  First off, I run all these machines and it's my
job to recommend what's best for these users in my view.  That is after
all what I'm paid for.  Second of all, in this particular case there were
only a few out of dozens of workstations that I support that didn't have
68881s.  I see no reason to penalize all those other dozens of
workstations for the benefit of a few under equipted workstations.

  Go to bed and get rested.  You're way to tense.

Casey