This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH, rs6000][trunk, 4.9, 4.8] Fix PR target/61415, long double 128 issues
- From: Peter Bergner <bergner at vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Michael Meissner <meissner at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 15:59:15 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, rs6000][trunk, 4.9, 4.8] Fix PR target/61415, long double 128 issues
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1401998259 dot 19268 dot 5 dot camel at otta> <CAGWvnyk6Pa7u2A9P7LS-7K7676Uac8yhyP+uvKsJqyas1KqnOA at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 11:37 -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Peter Bergner <bergner@vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > Is this also ok for the FSF 4.9 and FSF 4.8 branches? Without the gcc/
> > changes, we hit an ICE whenever we call __builtin_pack_longdouble and
> > __builtin_unpack_longdouble when -mlong-double-64 is in effect.
[snip]
> > gcc/
> > PR target/61415
> > * config/rs6000/rs6000-builtin.def (BU_MISC_1): Delete.
> > (BU_MISC_2): Rename to ...
> > (BU_LDBL128_2): ... this.
> > * config/rs6000/rs6000.h (RS6000_BTM_LDBL128): New define.
> > (RS6000_BTM_COMMON): Add RS6000_BTM_LDBL128.
> > * config/rs6000/rs6000.c (rs6000_builtin_mask_calculate): Handle
> > RS6000_BTM_LDBL128.
> > (rs6000_invalid_builtin): Add long double 128-bit builtin support.
> > (rs6000_builtin_mask_names): Add RS6000_BTM_LDBL128.
> > * config/rs6000/rs6000.md (unpacktf_0): Remove define)expand.
> > (unpacktf_1): Likewise.
> > * doc/extend.texi (__builtin_longdouble_dw0): Remove documentation.
> > (__builtin_longdouble_dw1): Likewise.
> > * doc/sourcebuild.texi (longdouble128): Document.
> >
> > gcc/testsuite/
> > PR target/61415
> > * lib/target-supports.exp (check_effective_target_longdouble128): New.
> > * gcc.target/powerpc/pack02.c: Use it.
> > * gcc.target/powerpc/tfmode_off.c: Likewise.
>
> This is okay with me, as long as there are no objections from RMs
> about removing the private APIs that should not have been added to FSF
> GCC.
...back from a short vacation.
Richard and/or Jakub, do either of you have an objection to the above
patch going into the FSF 4.9 and 4.8 branches?
Peter