Bernd Schmidt wrote:
I attached a diff file for 14 files of the new structures
and documents. You and other maintainers are welcome to
check it. Thanks a lot!
Note: 14 files are =
genmodes.c mode-classes.def machmode.def machmode.h tree.def tree.h
tree.c rtl.def rtl.h rtl.c
Fu, Chao-Ying wrote:
+ACCUM_MODE (HA, 2, 8, 7); /* s8.7 */
+ACCUM_MODE (SA, 4, 16, 15); /* s16.15 */
+ACCUM_MODE (DA, 8, 32, 31); /* s32.31 */
+ACCUM_MODE (TA, 16, 64, 63); /* s64.63 */
Lots of predefined types and modes in this patch. What about targets
with other requirements (the Blackfin
Bernd Schmidt wrote:
+ACCUM_MODE (HA, 2, 8, 7); /* s8.7 */
+ACCUM_MODE (SA, 4, 16, 15); /* s16.15 */
+ACCUM_MODE (DA, 8, 32, 31); /* s32.31 */
+ACCUM_MODE (TA, 16, 64, 63); /* s64.63 */
Lots of predefined types and modes in this patch. What
about targets
with other requirements
Fu, Chao-Ying wrote:
As Mark requested, we propose a merge plan for the fixed-point branch
as follows.
I think this is a good plan. Since there have been no negative
comments, let's go with this approach.
I've looked at the big patch you posted, and I think it looks very good
overall. You
Hi,
As Mark requested, we propose a merge plan for the fixed-point branch
as follows.
1. Merge in machine modes to support signed and unsigned
fract and accum modes. Handle scalar and vector modes.
2. Merge in fixed-value.h and fixed-value.c to handle fixed-point values.
3. Merge in TREE
Mark Mitchell wrote:
I attached a diff file for 14 files of the new structures
and documents. You and other maintainers are welcome to
check it. Thanks a lot!
Thank you for posting this.
Things about which I am clueless:
What is the difference between a _Fract type and an
Fu, Chao-Ying wrote:
Right now, the fixed-point support is a configure-time option.
Each target can decide to support it or not. I think there is no
harm to enable for every target. But, each target needs to modify
tm.h tm.c tm-modes.def to set or change some target macros.
I would
Fu, Chao-Ying wrote:
I attached a diff file for 14 files of the new structures
and documents. You and other maintainers are welcome to
check it. Thanks a lot!
Thank you for posting this.
Things about which I am clueless:
What is the difference between a _Fract type and an _Accum type?
Fu, Chao-Ying wrote:
2. Joseph, at that point, would you please invest a a little
bit of time
(a couple of hours) to look at the branch, and provide some feedback?
Please provide comments to Chao-Ying, and also please let me know
whether you think the work is nearly ready for inclusion?
-Original Message-
From: Mark Mitchell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 9:05 AM
To: Joseph S. Myers
Cc: Fu, Chao-Ying; Richard Henderson; GCC
Subject: Re: Fixed-point branch?
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
I haven't examined it. When the branch maintainers
On Mon, 28 May 2007, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Joseph, Richard --
As C maintainers, have either of you looked at Chao-Ying's fixed-point
branch?
I haven't examined it. When the branch maintainers consider it ready to
merge I hope a proposal along the lines of the DFP one
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
I haven't examined it. When the branch maintainers consider it ready to
merge I hope a proposal along the lines of the DFP one
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-11/msg01128.html will be posted (see also
subsequent discussion in that thread, and on the submitted
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Chao-Ying, I'm also interested in whether or not these changes have any
impact on C++. With your changes, does GNU C++ now accept any
fixed-point constructs?
Chao-ying's on vacation this week. AFAIK Chao-ying's code does nothing explicit
to support, or not support,
Joseph, Richard --
As C maintainers, have either of you looked at Chao-Ying's fixed-point
branch?
My understanding (from the note on the Wiki page) is that the
fixed-point support is now in reasonably good shape, and works on all
architectures, using an emulation library. So, I'm wondering
14 matches
Mail list logo
