This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: builtin float.h macros

From: Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk>
To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>,gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 22:32:06 +0100
Subject: Re: builtin float.h macros
References: <20020903202422.GA13031@redhat.com> <Pine.LNX.4.33.0209032128030.20443-100000@kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk> <20020903210051.GE9129@redhat.com> <20020903211830.GA31696@daikokuya.co.uk> <20020903212515.GG9129@redhat.com>

Richard Henderson wrote:-

> That doesn't help the p-/p+ thing.  

Doh.

> What would break if we unconditionally interpreted p- as 
> valid for a preprocessor number?  I can't think of any
> alternate valid interpretations of 0x1p-22...

Nothing I can think of.  It's fine by me; rejecting it was always a
bit extreme in my opinion.  If you do this, please blow away the
extended_numbers flag as I think it would become unused.

Neil.

References:
- builtin float.h macros
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: builtin float.h macros
  - From: Joseph S. Myers
- Re: builtin float.h macros
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: builtin float.h macros
  - From: Neil Booth
- Re: builtin float.h macros
  - From: Richard Henderson

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]