This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: Address some fallout from "fractional modes"
- From: "Zack Weinberg" <zack at codesourcery dot com>
- To: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 22:46:45 -0800
- Subject: Re: RFC: Address some fallout from "fractional modes"
- References: <10311050259.AA01092@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
email@example.com (Richard Kenner) writes:
> This patch is relative to the tree as of Sunday. I see that a
> "temporary workaround" was committed to gcc/ada this morning.
> I am not about to dig through that very large bulk update to
> find out what it was
> Arno's ChangeLog entry was a little confusing there: the only change
> relevant to this was to use and define the two new fp_* functions.
> (The DIGIT stuff was fixing a bug with GC and VAX floating point
> types.) They are in misc.c. They need the obvious change after
> this patch and that's the better way to deal with it for the moment.
So, let me make sure I understand this: I should drop the patches I
already did for ada/. Instead I should replace GET_MODE_BITSIZE(X)
with GET_MODE_PRECISION(X) and GET_MODE_SIZE(X)*BITS_PER_UNIT with
GET_MODE_BITSIZE(X). That should be enough. Correct?
> (please, consider contributing each individual change as a separate
> patch, as is done for all other work).
> It has been considered, but isn't practical because of the amount of
> work that's involved. First, gathering "each individual change"
> together between different files is non-trival. But if each patch
> is submitted separately, it has to be *tested* separately, which
> will increase the number of test runs each day by over an order of
Oddly enough, everyone else can cope just fine with both of these
requirements. I do not see why the Ada front end should be different.