on 2024/4/30 07:11, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Apr 29, 2024, "Kewen.Lin" 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,
On Apr 29, 2024, "Kewen.Lin" 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
on 2024/4/29 15:20, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Apr 28, 2024, "Kewen.Lin" wrote:
>
>> OK, from this perspective IMHO it seems more clear to adopt xfail
>> with effective target long_double_64bit?
>
> That's effective target is quite broken, alas. I doubt it's used
> anywhere: it calls an
On Apr 28, 2024, "Kewen.Lin" wrote:
> OK, from this perspective IMHO it seems more clear to adopt xfail
> with effective target long_double_64bit?
That's effective target is quite broken, alas. I doubt it's used
anywhere: it calls an undefined proc, and its memcmp call seems to have
the size
On Apr 28, 2024, "Kewen.Lin" wrote:
> OK, from this perspective IMHO it seems more clear to adopt xfail
> with effective target long_double_64bit?
*nod*, yeah, that makes sense.
I'm going to travel this week, to speak at FSF's LibrePlanet conference,
so I'll look into massaging the patch into
Hi,
on 2024/4/28 16:20, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Apr 23, 2024, "Kewen.Lin" wrote:
>
>> This patch seemed to miss to CC gcc-patches list. :)
>
> Oops, sorry, thanks for catching that.
>
> Here it is. FTR, you've already responded suggesting an apparent
> preference for addressing PR105359,
On Apr 23, 2024, "Kewen.Lin" wrote:
> This patch seemed to miss to CC gcc-patches list. :)
Oops, sorry, thanks for catching that.
Here it is. FTR, you've already responded suggesting an apparent
preference for addressing PR105359, but since I meant to contribute it,
I'm reposting is to
Hi!
Please don't send patches as replies.
On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 10:33:35AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Apr 14, 2022, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> > * gcc.target/powerpr/pr79004.c: Add -mlong-double-128.
>
> Just like pr79004, float128-hw.c requires -mlong-double-128 for some
> the
On Apr 14, 2022, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> * gcc.target/powerpr/pr79004.c: Add -mlong-double-128.
Just like pr79004, float128-hw.c requires -mlong-double-128 for some
the expected asm opcodes to be output on target variants that have
64-bit long doubles. That's because their expanders,
On Apr 13, 2022, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> * gcc.target/powerpc/pr79004.c: Prune the -mfloat128 warning.
I failed to mention that this fixed a problem in the test, but that was
not enough for this test to pass; here's an incremental patch that is.
Some of the asm opcodes expected by
10 matches
Mail list logo