On Wed, 8 Jan 2014, Richard Henderson wrote: > diff --git a/libgcc/soft-fp/soft-fp.h b/libgcc/soft-fp/soft-fp.h > index 696fc86..b54b1ed 100644 > --- a/libgcc/soft-fp/soft-fp.h > +++ b/libgcc/soft-fp/soft-fp.h > @@ -237,6 +237,11 @@ typedef int DItype __attribute__ ((mode (DI))); > typedef unsigned int UQItype __attribute__ ((mode (QI))); > typedef unsigned int USItype __attribute__ ((mode (SI))); > typedef unsigned int UDItype __attribute__ ((mode (DI))); > +#if _FP_W_TYPE_SIZE == 64 > +typedef int TItype __attribute__ ((mode (TI))); > +typedef unsigned int UTItype __attribute__ ((mode (TI))); > +#endif
This isn't the right conditional. _FP_W_TYPE_SIZE is ultimately an optimization choice and need not be related to whether any TImode functions are being defined using soft-fp, or whether TImode is supported at all. I think the most you can do is have sfp-machine.h define a macro to say that TImode should be supported in soft-fp, rather than actually defining the types itself. (If someone were to use soft-fp on hppa64, then they might well use _FP_W_TYPE_SIZE == 64, but hppa64 doesn't support TImode.) -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
