https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
--- Comment #19 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Mon Apr 11 13:47:40 2016
New Revision: 234881
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234881=gcc=rev
Log:
PR70117, ppc long double isinf
gcc/
PR target/70117
* builtins.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
--- Comment #18 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Mon Apr 11 13:46:51 2016
New Revision: 234880
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234880=gcc=rev
Log:
PR70117, ppc long double isinf
gcc/
PR target/70117
* builtins.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
--- Comment #17 from Alan Modra ---
Author: amodra
Date: Fri Apr 8 02:11:52 2016
New Revision: 234821
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234821=gcc=rev
Log:
PR70117, ppc long double isinf
gcc/
PR target/70117
* builtins.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
--- Comment #16 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Tue, 5 Apr 2016, amodra at gmail dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
>
> --- Comment #14 from Alan Modra ---
> > if (fmt == _extended_double)
>
> No,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #14)
> > if (fmt == _extended_double)
>
> No, there is mips_extended_format too.
As said above the best is to provide optabs for all three fns and optimal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
--- Comment #14 from Alan Modra ---
> if (fmt == _extended_double)
No, there is mips_extended_format too.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
--- Comment #13 from Michael Meissner ---
In gcc/builtins.c it is probably better to use:
const struct real_format *fmt = FLOAT_MODE_FORMAT (mode);
if (fmt == _extended_double)
{
// ...
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 14 Mar 2016, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
>
> --- Comment #11 from joseph at codesourcery dot com dot com> ---
> On Mon,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
--- Comment #11 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Mon, 14 Mar 2016, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> but it will end up with libcalls for isinf, isfinite and isnormal for
> IBM extended double. I'm told glibc does the right thing
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
So, "simplest" patch:
Index: gcc/builtins.c
===
--- gcc/builtins.c (revision 234180)
+++ gcc/builtins.c (working copy)
@@ -7529,6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||powerpc*
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
Michel Normand changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||normand at linux dot
vnet.ibm.com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
--- Comment #7 from Ulrich Weigand ---
Ah, OK. I did't realize this value didn't fit into a 106-bit mantissa.
I agree that it probably doesn't make sense to change the internal
representation to allow larger mantissas. First of all, there's
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
--- Comment #6 from Alan Modra ---
> Well, what I don't quite understand is that the gnulib value, which is
>
> 0x1.f7cp+1023
Sorry, I didn't look properly at the bug before commenting last night. For
some reason I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
The issue is that GCC internally handles IBM long double as having a
106-bit mantissa. There is one value that is larger than can be
represented with a 106-bit mantissa, while still being
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
--- Comment #4 from Ulrich Weigand ---
(In reply to Alan Modra from comment #3)
> > while with GCC, we get:
> >
> > high double: 7FEF
> > low double: 7C8F FFFE
>
> Right. This is 0x1.f78p+1023
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
Alan Modra changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
--- Comment #2 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 7 Mar 2016, uweigand at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
>
> Ulrich Weigand changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
Ulrich Weigand changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amodra at gcc dot gnu.org,
21 matches
Mail list logo
