On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 15:51:02 PDT (-0700), H.J. Lu wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 3:25 PM Palmer Dabbelt <pal...@dabbelt.com> wrote:On Sat, 24 Sep 2022 19:13:36 PDT (-0700), san...@codesourcery.com wrote: > On 9/18/22 02:47, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: >> On Fri, 09 Sep 2022 02:46:40 PDT (-0700), Palmer Dabbelt wrote: >>> I just happened to stuble on this one while trying to sort out the >>> RISC-V bits. >>> >>> gcc/ChangeLog >>> >>> * doc/tm.texi (TARGET_C_EXCESS_PRECISION): Add 16. >>> --- >>> gcc/doc/tm.texi | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/gcc/doc/tm.texi b/gcc/doc/tm.texi >>> index 858bfb80cec..7590924f2ca 100644 >>> --- a/gcc/doc/tm.texi >>> +++ b/gcc/doc/tm.texi >>> @@ -1009,7 +1009,7 @@ of the excess precision explicitly added. For >>> @code{EXCESS_PRECISION_TYPE_FLOAT16}, and >>> @code{EXCESS_PRECISION_TYPE_FAST}, the target should return the >>> explicit excess precision that should be added depending on the >>> -value set for @option{-fexcess-precision=@r{[}standard@r{|}fast@r{]}}. >>> +value set for >>> @option{-fexcess-precision=@r{[}standard@r{|}fast@r{|}16@r{]}}. >>> Note that unpredictable explicit excess precision does not make sense, >>> so a target should never return @code{FLT_EVAL_METHOD_UNPREDICTABLE} >>> when @var{type} is @code{EXCESS_PRECISION_TYPE_STANDARD}, >> >> Just pinging this one as I'm not sure if it's OK to self-approve -- no >> rush on my end, I already figured it out so I don't need the >> documentation any more. > > This is fine, looks like a trivial correction. Thanks, committed.tm.texi is a generated file. I am checking in this patch to restore bootstrap.
Sorry about that, and thanks for fixing it.
