This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: patch: rs6000 specific
- From: Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>
- To: Stan Shebs <shebs at apple dot com>, David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>, dalej at apple dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 05 Dec 2001 13:01:43 -0800
- Subject: Re: patch: rs6000 specific
- References: <200112051603.LAA26394@makai.watson.ibm.com> <3C0E4B11.58B91A1C@apple.com>
- Reply-to: Geoff Keating <geoffk at redhat dot com>
Stan Shebs <shebs@apple.com> writes:
> David Edelsohn wrote:
> >
> > I do not accept your premise that once GCC defaults to one thing
> > which violates IEEE compliance that anything is fair game. The potential
> > effects of the lack of compliance are gradual.
>
> I don't understand this myself. It sounds like you're trying to
> distinguish degrees of noncompliance, but if so, what is the
> measure you want to use?
In another mail, I proposed using Annex F of the C standard. This is,
so far as I know, the only standardized binding of the C language to
IEEE754; without such a binding, you can't speak meaningfully about
_any_ relationship between C and IEEE754.
--
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org> <geoffk@redhat.com>