Re: [PATCH] Add __builtin_iseqsig()

On Wed, 19 Jul 2023, FX Coudert wrote: > 6 weeks later, I?d like to ask a global maintainer to review this. > The idea was okay?ed previously by Joseph Myers, but he asked for testing of > both the quiet and signalling NaN cases, which is now done. OK. Thanks, Richard. > FX > > > > Le 6

Re: [PATCH] Add __builtin_iseqsig()

6 weeks later, I’d like to ask a global maintainer to review this. The idea was okay’ed previously by Joseph Myers, but he asked for testing of both the quiet and signalling NaN cases, which is now done. FX > Le 6 juin 2023 à 20:15, FX Coudert a écrit : > > Hi, > > (It took me a while to

Re: [PATCH] Add __builtin_iseqsig()

ping**3 >> Le 6 juin 2023 à 20:15, FX Coudert a écrit : >> >> Hi, >> >> (It took me a while to get back to this.) >> >> This is a new and improved version of the patch at >> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/602932.html >> It addresses the comment from Joseph that

Re: [PATCH] Add __builtin_iseqsig()

ping**2 > Le 6 juin 2023 à 20:15, FX Coudert a écrit : > > Hi, > > (It took me a while to get back to this.) > > This is a new and improved version of the patch at > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/602932.html > It addresses the comment from Joseph that FE_INVALID

Re: [PATCH] Add __builtin_iseqsig()

ping > Hi, > > (It took me a while to get back to this.) > > This is a new and improved version of the patch at > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/602932.html > It addresses the comment from Joseph that FE_INVALID should really be tested > in the case of both quiet and

[PATCH] Add __builtin_iseqsig()

Hi, (It took me a while to get back to this.) This is a new and improved version of the patch at https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-October/602932.html It addresses the comment from Joseph that FE_INVALID should really be tested in the case of both quiet and signaling NaNs, which

Re: [PATCH] Add __builtin_iseqsig()

Hi, > Joseph's reply earlier in this thread has indicated a desire to verify that > verifies FE_INVALID is raised when appropriate and not raised when > inappropriate when the arguments come from volatile variables rather than > directly from constants. > > The patch itself looks pretty

Re: [PATCH] Add __builtin_iseqsig()

On 10/31/22 13:15, FX wrote: Hi, Just adding, from the Fortran 2018 perspective, things we will need to implement for which I think support from the middle-end might be necessary: - rounded conversions: converting, from an integer or floating point type, into another floating point type,

Re: [PATCH] Add __builtin_iseqsig()

On Mon, 31 Oct 2022, FX via Gcc-patches wrote: > - rounded conversions: converting, from an integer or floating point > type, into another floating point type, with specific rounding mode > passed as argument These don't have standard C names. The way to do these in C would be using the

Re: [PATCH] Add __builtin_iseqsig()

Hi, Just adding, from the Fortran 2018 perspective, things we will need to implement for which I think support from the middle-end might be necessary: - rounded conversions: converting, from an integer or floating point type, into another floating point type, with specific rounding mode passed

Re: [PATCH] Add __builtin_iseqsig()

On Fri, 28 Oct 2022, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote: > Joseph, do you have bits in this space that are going to be landing soon, or > is your C2X work focused elsewhere?  Are there other C2X routines we need to > be proving builtins for? I don't have any builtins work planned for GCC 13 (maybe

Re: [PATCH] Add __builtin_iseqsig()

On 9/21/22 03:40, FX via Gcc-patches wrote: ping*2 Le 9 sept. 2022 à 19:55, FX a écrit : ping Le 1 sept. 2022 à 23:02, FX a écrit : Attached patch adds __builtin_iseqsig() to the middle-end and C family front-ends. Testing does not currently check whether the signaling part works,

Re: [PATCH] Add __builtin_iseqsig()

My reading of the bug given as a reason for not testing that FE_INVALID is raised for (both quiet and signaling) NaN arguments is that it's specifically about constant arguments. That is, it ought to be possible to have a testcase that verifies FE_INVALID is raised when appropriate (and not

Re: [PATCH] Add __builtin_iseqsig()

ping*3 please? > Le 21 sept. 2022 à 11:40, FX a écrit : > > ping*2 > > <0001-Add-__builtin_iseqsig.patch> > >> Le 9 sept. 2022 à 19:55, FX a écrit : >> >> ping >> >> >>> Le 1 sept. 2022 à 23:02, FX a écrit : >>> >>> Attached patch adds __builtin_iseqsig() to the middle-end and C family

Re: [PATCH] Add __builtin_iseqsig()

ping*2 0001-Add-__builtin_iseqsig.patch Description: Binary data > Le 9 sept. 2022 à 19:55, FX a écrit : > > ping > > >> Le 1 sept. 2022 à 23:02, FX a écrit : >> >> Attached patch adds __builtin_iseqsig() to the middle-end and C family >> front-ends. >> Testing does not currently check

Re: [PATCH] Add __builtin_iseqsig()

ping > Le 1 sept. 2022 à 23:02, FX a écrit : > > Attached patch adds __builtin_iseqsig() to the middle-end and C family > front-ends. > Testing does not currently check whether the signaling part works, because > with optimisation is actually does not (preexisting compiler bug: >

[PATCH] Add __builtin_iseqsig()

Attached patch adds __builtin_iseqsig() to the middle-end and C family front-ends. Testing does not currently check whether the signaling part works, because with optimisation is actually does not (preexisting compiler bug: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106805) Bootstrapped and