This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] S/390: DFP support 1/4: Add z9-ec option
- From: Janis Johnson <janis187 at us dot ibm dot com>
- To: Ulrich Weigand <uweigand at de dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: Janis Johnson <janis187 at us dot ibm dot com>, Andreas Krebbel <Andreas dot Krebbel at de dot ibm dot com>, Peter Bergner <bergner at vnet dot ibm dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Ulrich dot Weigand at de dot ibm dot com, bje at au1 dot ibm dot com
- Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 15:51:43 -0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] S/390: DFP support 1/4: Add z9-ec option
- References: <20070326165752.GA4637@us.ibm.com> <200703271256.l2RCusKQ004237@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com>
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 02:56:54PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Janis Johnson wrote:
>
> > The options -mdfp/-mno-dfp match existing options to enable or disable
> > sets of hardware instructions.
>
> I see, we don't really have much of those.
>
> > If we weren't already using "dfp"
> > informally in some cases to refer to the C extension for decimal
> > floating point data types then there wouldn't be any confusion. We
> > don't, however, seem to use "dfp" in any documentation.
>
> What about -mhard-dfp vs. -mno-hard-dfp ? That would keep in line
> with the instruction set option syntax, but still avoid the potentially
> misleading -mno-dfp ...
I'm still pondering this, but I like it better than -msoft-dfp.
Janis