Re: GCC Status Report (2007-06-15)
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 04:46:10PM +1000, Ben Elliston wrote: On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 06:17 -0700, H. J. Lu wrote: BTW, an x86 DFP configure bug was reported 3 months ago. But it still hasn't benen fixed. I opened a DFP bug report: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32351 with a patch. I hope it will be fixed before gcc 4.3 is released :-). Sorry about the delay. Yes, I assure you it will be fixed by then and perhaps by the end of this week .. :-) Hi Ben, Can you take a look at this patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-06/msg01052.html I'd like to TFmode conversion supprot to DFP. Currently libdecnumber doesn't support TFmode conversion. Intel BID library does. I need this patch to enable TFmode conversion. It has no impact on DFP runtime with libdecnumber. Thanks. H.J.
Re: GCC Status Report (2007-06-15)
H. J. Lu wrote: Good. I have another question. Intel BID patch itself doesn't change any sources in DFP nor libdecnummber. The only significant change is to change Makefile in libgcc to use Intel BID library for DFP intrinsics when BID encoding is selected. Currently, DFP is only supported on Linux/PPC, which uses DPD encoding, and Linux/x86, which uses BID encoding. So Intel BID patch only affects Linux/x86 as it changes libgcc/Makefile.in to use Intel BID library. Who has the final say on this patch? The build system maintainers and the x86 maintainers. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713
Re: GCC Status Report (2007-06-15)
On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 06:17 -0700, H. J. Lu wrote: BTW, an x86 DFP configure bug was reported 3 months ago. But it still hasn't benen fixed. I opened a DFP bug report: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32351 with a patch. I hope it will be fixed before gcc 4.3 is released :-). Sorry about the delay. Yes, I assure you it will be fixed by then and perhaps by the end of this week .. :-) Cheers, Ben
Re: PR other/32351 [Was: Re: GCC Status Report (2007-06-15)]
It is a libdecnumber bug, which only affects x86. The patch is ok. Paolo
Re: GCC Status Report (2007-06-15)
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 04:31:14PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: H. J. Lu wrote: Who are those relevant maintainers? Since Intel BID patches only affects DFP intrinsics, which is only supported on Linux/PPC, Linux/ia32 and Linux/x86-64 while Linux/PPC uses DPD encoding, not BID encoding, I assume the relevant maintainers are maintainers for DFP, libgcc and x86 backend. That sounds correct to me. Good. I have another question. Intel BID patch itself doesn't change any sources in DFP nor libdecnummber. The only significant change is to change Makefile in libgcc to use Intel BID library for DFP intrinsics when BID encoding is selected. Currently, DFP is only supported on Linux/PPC, which uses DPD encoding, and Linux/x86, which uses BID encoding. So Intel BID patch only affects Linux/x86 as it changes libgcc/Makefile.in to use Intel BID library. Who has the final say on this patch? H.J.
Re: GCC Status Report (2007-06-15)
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 03:39:49PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: in the relatively near future. I am also considering the Intel BID patches for 4.3, as those have arrived just under the wire. I would appreciate comments from relevant maintainers about those patches. Who are those relevant maintainers? Since Intel BID patches only affects DFP intrinsics, which is only supported on Linux/PPC, Linux/ia32 and Linux/x86-64 while Linux/PPC uses DPD encoding, not BID encoding, I assume the relevant maintainers are maintainers for DFP, libgcc and x86 backend. BTW, an x86 DFP configure bug was reported 3 months ago. But it still hasn't benen fixed. I opened a DFP bug report: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32351 with a patch. I hope it will be fixed before gcc 4.3 is released :-). Thanks. H.J.
PR other/32351 [Was: Re: GCC Status Report (2007-06-15)]
Hello! BTW, an x86 DFP configure bug was reported 3 months ago. But it still hasn't benen fixed. I opened a DFP bug report: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32351 with a patch. I hope it will be fixed before gcc 4.3 is released :-). So, is this bug a configure bug, DFP bug or x86 bug? From the PR, it is marked as other, and the patch is to gcc/libdecnumber/configure.ac. It doesn't look like an x86 bug to me. Uros.
Re: GCC Status Report (2007-06-15)
Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote: On Fri, 15 Jun 2007, Mark Mitchell wrote: GCC 4.3 Stage 1 is now closed. [...] As previously discussed, the mainline will be in lockdown for 1-2 weeks, starting midnight tonight. Other then the merges mentioned above, and documentation improvements, the only patches that should be committed during the lockdown are fixes for regressions. Timezone please? PDT? Sorry, I didn't spot this message until the period of ambiguity had passed. In the future, for avoidance of doubt, if I give a date but not a time, interpret it most generously: so long as it is still that date somewhere on earth, you can still do whatever it is that we're about to stop doing. :-) -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713
Re: GCC Status Report (2007-06-15)
H. J. Lu wrote: Who are those relevant maintainers? Since Intel BID patches only affects DFP intrinsics, which is only supported on Linux/PPC, Linux/ia32 and Linux/x86-64 while Linux/PPC uses DPD encoding, not BID encoding, I assume the relevant maintainers are maintainers for DFP, libgcc and x86 backend. That sounds correct to me. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713
Re: PR other/32351 [Was: Re: GCC Status Report (2007-06-15)]
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 05:22:25PM +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote: Hello! BTW, an x86 DFP configure bug was reported 3 months ago. But it still hasn't benen fixed. I opened a DFP bug report: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32351 with a patch. I hope it will be fixed before gcc 4.3 is released :-). So, is this bug a configure bug, DFP bug or x86 bug? From the PR, it is marked as other, and the patch is to gcc/libdecnumber/configure.ac. It doesn't look like an x86 bug to me. It is a libdecnumber bug, which only affects x86. H.J.
Re: GCC Status Report (2007-06-15)
On 6/15/07, Kaveh R. GHAZI [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Timezone please? PDT? I say JST because that past almost 13 hours ago :). Going to Japan gets me into that mood. -- Pinski
Re: GCC Status Report (2007-06-15)
On 6/15/07, Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hopefully, the PTR_PLUS branch and the fixed-point branch will be merged in the relatively near future. I checked in pointer_plus as revision 125755. Thanks, Andrew Pinski
