on 2024/4/30 07:11, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Apr 29, 2024, "Kewen.Lin" <li...@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > >> Thanks for catching this and sorry >> that I didn't check it before suggesting it, I think we can aggressively >> drop this effective target instead to avoid any possible confusion. > > The 128-bit ones, unfortunately, follow the same pattern but are > probably used. IMHO we should transition all 3 to an '_ok' suffix, but... >
Yeah, I noticed the 128-bit ones are used, I was just suggesting dropping check_effective_target_long_double_64bit and add_options_for_long_double_64bit as there is no user (since release 12 when it's introduced r12-3151), IMHO there would be not any uses in future, ... >> How about the generic one "longdouble64"? I did a grep and found it has one >> use, I'd expect it can work here. :) > > ... since this and longdouble128 exist, maybe we can fix it and leave > them all alone, despite the interface oddity. > ... personally I'm inclined to drop this 64 bit one. :) BR, Kewen
