This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, take 2]: Suffix for __float128 and __float80 FP constants
- From: "François-Xavier Coudert" <fxcoudert at gmail dot com>
- To: "Uros Bizjak" <ubizjak at gmail dot com>, "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>, "Steve Ellcey" <sje at cup dot hp dot com>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 16:07:41 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, take 2]: Suffix for __float128 and __float80 FP constants
Hi Uros,
First, many thanks for your work on __float128 on x86_64!
I believe that this is the last missing piece for full 128bit floats support.
Although I think we're close to that point, I have one more point in
mind: I think it should be decided whether or not we want to allow the
"_Complex __float128" syntax or not (PR32187: _Complex is not allowed
for typedefs, and __float128 is a builtin typedef). My personal
opinion is that it would really be easier to deal with (otherwise we
need to use "_Complex float __attribute__((mode(TC)))"), but in any
case it would be nice if a decision could be reached. What is the
opinion of C maintainers?
BTW: All that remains for a brave hero is to take care that
http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/libc/sysdeps/ieee754/ldbl-128/?cvsroot=glibc
uses __float128 instead of 'long double' and Q suffix instead of L for x86_64.
Do you mean that it should be included in glibc, or in some GCC subdirectory?
FX