This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFH][libgcc] fp-bit bit ordering (PR 78804)
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: Oleg Endo <oleg dot endo at t-online dot de>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 09:01:42 -0700
- Subject: Re: [RFH][libgcc] fp-bit bit ordering (PR 78804)
- References: <b6760321e87572ff1ec815b7f3a2af1ef8394648.camel@t-online.de> <659f8cb8-a327-6213-2c65-9bf0549bcc1e@redhat.com> <2e59eb11f43d4c2c13faf9576fe3f2b67f66120b.camel@t-online.de> <33987cdec31473e41868636f05b0ca3325a3ed90.camel@t-online.de>
On 11/3/19 5:12 AM, Oleg Endo wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-10-11 at 23:27 +0900, Oleg Endo wrote:
>> On Thu, 2019-10-03 at 19:34 -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>>>
>>> So probably the most interesting target for this test is v850-elf
>>> as
>>> it's got a reasonably well functioning simulator, hard and soft FP
>>> targets, little endian, and I'm familiar with its current set of
>>> failures.
>>>
>>> I can confirm that your patch makes no difference in the test
>>> results
>>> (which includes execution results).
>>>
>>> In fact, there haven't been any problems on any target in my tester
>>> that
>>> I can tie back to this change.
>>>
>>> At this point I'd say let's go for it.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks, Jeff. I'll commit it to trunk if there are no further
>> objections some time next week.
>>
>
> I've just committed it as r277752.
>
> Personally I'd like to install it on GCC 8 and 9 branches as well.
> Any thoughts on that?
Obviously we tend to be a bit more conservative the older the branch.
But this is also a correctness issue.
I'd suggest a week or two on the trunk, then go ahead with backporting.
jeff