https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20785
Campbell changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rlcamp.pdx at gmail dot com
--- Comment #19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20785
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|enhancement |normal
--- Comment #18 from Eric
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20785
--- Comment #17 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Pavel M from comment #16)
> Note: The #pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS is unknown and ignored (leading to FP
> issues), however, the __STDC_IEC_559__ is defined to 1. Confused.
Yes, and IMHO, with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20785
--- Comment #16 from Pavel M ---
Note: The #pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS is unknown and ignored (leading to FP
issues), however, the __STDC_IEC_559__ is defined to 1. Confused.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20785
--- Comment #15 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Pavel M from comment #14)
> The "warning: ignoring '#pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS' [-Wunknown-pragmas]"
> probably needs to be generated by default
Getting the warning on "#pragma STDC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20785
--- Comment #14 from Pavel M ---
To: Vincent Lefèvre
Re: the warnings are useless.
The "warning: ignoring '#pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS' [-Wunknown-pragmas]" probably
needs to be generated by default (i.e. not with -Wall) because now gcc silently
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20785
Pavel M changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pavel.morozkin at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20785
--- Comment #13 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
If the default state of these pragmas (at least with options like -std=c11) is
respectively "off", "on", "off", then changing the pragma state can safely be
ignored by the implementation, as
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20785
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
I have idea on how to fix the FENV_ACCESS issue (for gimple), basically you add
an extra virtual use op for float gimples and virtual define for functions and
inline-asm. Now I am not going to implement
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20785
--- Comment #10 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Fri, 21 Feb 2020, vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net wrote:
> Concerning the STDC FP_CONTRACT pragma, implementing it would not be
> sufficient. GCC would also need to restrict how it does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20785
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Note fixin(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #8)
> Concerning the STDC FP_CONTRACT pragma, implementing it would not be
> sufficient. GCC would also need to restrict how it does contraction, as it
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20785
--- Comment #8 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
Concerning the STDC FP_CONTRACT pragma, implementing it would not be
sufficient. GCC would also need to restrict how it does contraction, as it
currently does not contract only expressions, but also
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20785
Vincent Lefèvre changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net
---
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-30 07:19 ---
*** Bug 39036 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
14 matches
Mail list logo
