This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PING] Re: [PATCH] ARM half-precision floating point, 5/8 (detect constant overflow)
- From: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Sandra Loosemore <sandra at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>, trevor_smigiel at playstation dot sony dot com, edelsohn at gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 17:03:39 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PING] Re: [PATCH] ARM half-precision floating point, 5/8 (detect constant overflow)
- References: <49E65E6F.4040303@codesourcery.com> <84fc9c000904160118w3598a76eq66625503c85b7250@mail.gmail.com> <4A0D8287.6050001@codesourcery.com>
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 4:56 PM, Sandra Loosemore
<sandra@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> If Joseph thinks this is ok the patch is ok if it passes
>> bootstrap / testing on another target with lacking NaN/Inf support.
>>>
>>> 2009-04-15 ?Sandra Loosemore ?<sandra@codesourcery.com>
>>>
>>> ? ? ? gcc/
>>> ? ? ? * fold-const.c (fold_convert_const_real_from_real): Check for
>>> ? ? ? overflow.
>
> I've still been unable to set up a test machine for this locally, and I did
> not get a response from the spu port maintainers when I asked for testing
> help a few weeks ago.
>
> Is it reasonable for me to go ahead and commit the patch anyway, with the
> understanding that it can be reverted and/or re-worked if it causes problems
> for spu? ?Personally, I'm confident that Joseph has a good handle on the
> correctness issues of this change. ?I'll also note that you have compile
> with -pedantic to get the overflow warning at all, and the patch has no
> effect on the value stored in the overflowing constant. ?So it seems very
> low-risk, to me.
Go ahead.
Richard.
> Here's a pointer to the original patch post:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-04/msg01126.html
>
> -Sandra
>
>