On Thu, 30 Jun 2016, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> # Return 1 if the target supports any special run-time requirements
>
> # for __float128 or _Float128,
>
> # 0 otherwise.
>
On Thu, 2016-06-30 at 17:55 +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2016, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>
> > +# Return 1 if the target supports __float128 at run time,
> > +# 0 otherwise.
> > +
> > +proc check_effective_target___float128_runnable { } {
>
> I'd think you should have an
On Thu, 30 Jun 2016, Bill Schmidt wrote:
> +# Return 1 if the target supports __float128 at run time,
> +# 0 otherwise.
> +
> +proc check_effective_target___float128_runnable { } {
I'd think you should have an effective-target for this that's shared
between _Float128 and __float128, possibly
Hi,
My previous patch added to the specific target list for the tests, and
Joseph suggested it would be better to use an effective target check.
This version does this. To avoid a name clash with Joseph's pending
patch, the effective target names include __float128 rather than
float128. I
