Re: Built-in testing for signaling nan?

> Given how murky signaling NaNs are in practice, I think it's worth > asking: why do you want to know? Because I am writing an implementation of the IEEE support modules in GNU Fortran, which are part of the Fortran 2003 standard. And the standard provides for a procedure (IEEE_CLASS) to distin

Re: Mothballing C11 atomic work for now.

On 11/06/13 15:07, Joseph S. Myers wrote: The patch I've posted at is intended to be mainline-ready [ ... ] Joseph, just wanted to say thanks for picking this up and running with it. It was a tough decision to have Andrew put the work a

Re: Built-in testing for signaling nan?

On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:44 AM, FX wrote: > > GCC has a number of floating-point-related type-generic built-ins, which are > great and which we largely rely on in the gfortran runtime library (rather > than depending on the possibly poor-quality target math library). > > However, I have not been

Re: Mothballing C11 atomic work for now.

The patch I've posted at is intended to be mainline-ready (with the hopes that other people may pick up the ObjC and OpenMP issues, and floating-point handling for non-x86 targets, once it's in mainline). If that gets in in time for 4.9

Re: Built-in testing for signaling nan?

On Wed, 6 Nov 2013, N.M. Maclaren wrote: > > > Yes, due to the poor quality of the IEEE 754 specifications. In 1984, > > > the distinction was left completely unspecified (even in intent). In > > > 2008, there is a recommendation (no more) that the top bit of the payload > > > is used, with no s

RE: addsi3_mips16 and frame pointer with LRA

> I'll do the patch tomorrow to fix it. The patch should be not big but it will > need a lot testing. Thanks Vladimir. The fix appears to be working.

Re: Built-in testing for signaling nan?

Yes, due to the poor quality of the IEEE 754 specifications. In 1984, the distinction was left completely unspecified (even in intent). In 2008, there is a recommendation (no more) that the top bit of the payload is used, with no specification of what to do if that is zero (which is the most obv

Re: Built-in testing for signaling nan?

On Wed, 6 Nov 2013, N.M. Maclaren wrote: > Yes, due to the poor quality of the IEEE 754 specifications. In 1984, > the distinction was left completely unspecified (even in intent). In > 2008, there is a recommendation (no more) that the top bit of the payload > is used, with no specification of

Re: Built-in testing for signaling nan?

On Nov 6 2013, FX wrote: GCC has a number of floating-point-related type-generic built-ins, which are great and which we largely rely on in the gfortran runtime library (rather than depending on the possibly poor-quality target math library). However, I have not been able to find a way to te

Re: [Patch: libcpp, c-family, Fortran] Re: Warning about __DATE__ and __TIME__

On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Tom Tromey wrote: >> "Tobias" == Tobias Burnus writes: > > Tobias> + cpp_warning (pfile, CPP_W_DATE_TIME, "Macro \"%s\" might > prevent " > Tobias> + "reproduce builds", NODE_NAME (node)); > > Tobias> + cpp_warning (pfile, CP

Re: [Patch: libcpp, c-family, Fortran] Re: Warning about __DATE__ and __TIME__

> "Tobias" == Tobias Burnus writes: Tobias> Updated version attached – after bootstrapping and regtesting on Tobias> x86-64-gnu-linux Tobias> OK? Sorry, I didn't notice this until today. Tobias> @@ -925,7 +928,8 @@ enum { Tobias>CPP_W_NORMALIZE, Tobias>CPP_W_INVALID_PCH, Tobias>

Re: Built-in testing for signaling nan?

On Wed, 6 Nov 2013, FX wrote: > GCC has a number of floating-point-related type-generic built-ins, which > are great and which we largely rely on in the gfortran runtime library > (rather than depending on the possibly poor-quality target math > library). > > However, I have not been able to f

RE: Bootstrap issues in libsanitizer

> -Original Message- > From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 6, 2013 5:55 AM > To: Gopalasubramanian, Ganesh > Cc: Iyer, Balaji V; gcc@gcc.gnu.org; konstantin.s.serebry...@gmail.com; > Jonathan Wakely > Subject: Re: Bootstrap issues in libsan

Re: [RFC] Target compilation for offloading

On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 05:11:07PM +0400, Andrey Turetskiy wrote: > > Let's check my understanding: > > 1) We can configure gcc with, say, --offload-target=mic,ptx. It means Note, configure options should be either --with- or --enable- prefixed. Plus, it is probably better to use configuration tri

Built-in testing for signaling nan?

Hi all, GCC has a number of floating-point-related type-generic built-ins, which are great and which we largely rely on in the gfortran runtime library (rather than depending on the possibly poor-quality target math library). However, I have not been able to find a way to test for a signaling N

Re: [RFC] Target compilation for offloading

Ping On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 7:42 PM, Andrey Turetskiy wrote: > Let's check my understanding: > 1) We can configure gcc with, say, --offload-target=mic,ptx. It means > that after build and install we have 3 compilers: for host, for mic > and for ptx. In general case, the number may be less, becau

Re: Bootstrap issues in libsanitizer

On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Gopalasubramanian, Ganesh wrote: >> Are you including linux/vt.h yourself? If you get it via a glibc header >> then it's a SUSE issue, yes. Can you specify the SUSE version you are >> looking at? Even for 12.1 I see 'newev' here though SLE11 seems to have >>

Re: Bootstrap issues in libsanitizer

On 6 November 2013 10:45, Richard Biener wrote: > > Are you including linux/vt.h yourself? If you get it via a glibc header > then it's a SUSE issue, yes. Can you specify the SUSE version > you are looking at? Even for 12.1 I see 'newev' here though SLE11 > seems to have 'new'. libsanitizer inc

RE: Bootstrap issues in libsanitizer

> Are you including linux/vt.h yourself? If you get it via a glibc header then > it's a SUSE issue, yes. Can you specify the SUSE version you are looking at? > Even for 12.1 I see 'newev' here though SLE11 seems to have 'new'. I get the error with SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 11 (x86_64) VER

Re: Bootstrap issues in libsanitizer

On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 5 November 2013 15:38, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> On 5 November 2013 15:32, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>> On 5 November 2013 15:27, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: In file included from /usr/include/sys/vt.h:1:0, from .