Hello Mike,
I hope you can approve this patch now! Kishan On 31/10/25 12:55 pm, Michael Meissner wrote: > On Thu, Jul 24, 2025 at 08:48:05PM +0530, Kishan Parmar wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Changes from V1: >> Corrected Commit Message. >> >> Configure script previously accepted unsupported --with-long-double-64 >> option without any warning, leading to confusion. This option was >> mistakenly documented in install.texi but never handled by configure >> script, resulting in it being silently ignored. >> >> Patch updates configure script to error out when --with-long-double-64 >> or --without-long-double-64 is used, and instructs to use the correct >> --without-long-double-128 or --with-long-double-128 option instead. >> >> Additionally, the mistaken documentation reference in install.texi has >> been corrected to reflect the actual supported option. >> >> 2025-07-23 Peter Bergner <[email protected]> >> Kishan Parmar <[email protected]> >> >> ChangeLog: >> * configure.ac: Error out on --with-long-double-64. >> * configure: Regenerate. >> >> gcc/ChangeLog: >> * doc/install.texi: Remove incorrect mention of --with-long-double-64. > I thought that I had used --with-long-double=64 several years ago when > I was building 3 sets of GCC and comparing the results. > > 1: I built a compiler default to 128-bit IEEE long doubles; > 2: I built a compiler default to 128-bit IBM long doubles; (and) > 3: I built a compiler default to 64-bit long doubles. > > However, I see in the log for my build scripts, that on June 6th, 202 I > changed from using --with-long-double-64 to using > --without-long-double-128. > > So perhaps it stopped working in the 2022 through 2023 time frame. > Your patch looks fine to me (though at this point, Segher still has to > approve it). > > I like that you added code to actually check if the user used it by > accident. >
