On Wed, 6 May 2026 at 05:11, Alexandre Oliva <[email protected]> wrote: > > On May 5, 2026, Jonathan Wakely <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I don't think this is a good use of time. > > > I would prefer to just add a static_assert to reject -mlong-double-64 > > and say "don't do that, this isn't supported" > > Ugh, that's exactly what we had two patches ago :-(
Sorry for the back and forth. Matthias' comments about dropping long double support made me reconsider things. > > (now three, sorry about misnaming the macros, thanks for the fix) > > Now it works; the only pending patch in this set was the attempt to > apply the same preprocessor test to simd.h, where I made the same > mistake. > > I could fix it and resubmit it, but I get that the preference is to not > mess with it any further. > > It's just a micro-optimization, and I'm not even sure it actually > optimizes anything, so I don't mind at all if we just drop it. I'll > proceed accordingly. > > Thanks! > > -- > Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://blog.lx.oliva.nom.br/ > Free Software Activist FSFLA co-founder GNU Toolchain Engineer > More tolerance and less prejudice are key for inclusion and diversity. > Excluding neuro-others for not behaving ""normal"" is *not* inclusive! >
