On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 at 20:01, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2022, Patrick Palka wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 5:12 AM Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Tested x86_64-linux, pushed to trunk.
> > >
> > >
> > > Instead of hardcoded preprocessor conditionals with explicit target
>
On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 02:44:34PM -0500, Patrick Palka via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 5:12 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >
> > Tested x86_64-linux, pushed to trunk.
> >
> >
> > Instead of hardcoded preprocessor conditionals with explicit target
> > checks, just rely on the fact th
On Tue, 18 Jan 2022, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 5:12 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >
> > Tested x86_64-linux, pushed to trunk.
> >
> >
> > Instead of hardcoded preprocessor conditionals with explicit target
> > checks, just rely on the fact that __BYTE_ORDER__ is always defined
On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 5:12 AM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> Tested x86_64-linux, pushed to trunk.
>
>
> Instead of hardcoded preprocessor conditionals with explicit target
> checks, just rely on the fact that __BYTE_ORDER__ is always defined by
> GCC.
Thanks a lot for fixing these! I apparently m
Tested x86_64-linux, pushed to trunk.
Instead of hardcoded preprocessor conditionals with explicit target
checks, just rely on the fact that __BYTE_ORDER__ is always defined by
GCC.
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
PR libstdc++/104080
* src/c++17/fast_float/LOCAL_PATCHES: Update.
