On 4 September 2017 at 16:53, Laurent Vivier <laur...@vivier.eu> wrote:
> Le 04/09/2017 à 17:02, Peter Maydell a écrit :
>> On 4 September 2017 at 15:09, Laurent Vivier <laur...@vivier.eu> wrote:
>>> You can:
>>>
>>> either replace the "#define floatx80_pi make_floatx80(...)" by a "const
>>> floatx80 floatx80_pi = make_floatx80_init(...)"
>>>
>>> or replace all the macros in the m68k/fpu_helper.c array by
>>> make_floatx80_init(...)
>>
>> Taking a step back, what's different about floatx80 and float12
>> that means they need separate _init and non-init versions of
>> the macros, when for float16/float32/float64 we instead have
>> #define make_float32(x) __extension__ ({ float32 f32_val = {x}; f32_val; })
>> #define const_float32(x) { x }
>
> floatx80/float128 are structureq while float16/float32/float64 are
> native data types.If USE_SOFTFLOAT_STRUCT_TYPES is defined then float16/32/64 are also struct types and use the make_ and const_ macros as above. (We should check whether USE_SOFTFLOAT_STRUCT_TYPES still builds, it tends to bitrot. If it does then maybe we should use it by default since gcc 3 is now just a memory...) >> ? Could we move to consistency for the macro naming we're using? > > Do you mean "s/make_floatx80_init/const_floatx80/"? Yes (and the same implementation would be nice too). thanks -- PMM
