This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] S/390: DFP support 1/4: Add z9-ec option
- From: "Andreas Krebbel" <Andreas dot Krebbel at de dot ibm dot com>
- To: Janis Johnson <janis187 at us dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Ulrich dot Weigand at de dot ibm dot com, bergner at vnet dot ibm dot com
- Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 10:17:16 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] S/390: DFP support 1/4: Add z9-ec option
- References: <20070326165752.GA4637@us.ibm.com> <200703271256.l2RCusKQ004237@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> <20070327235143.GB8096@us.ibm.com>
> > What about -mhard-dfp vs. -mno-hard-dfp ? That would keep in line
> > with the instruction set option syntax, but still avoid the potentially
> > misleading -mno-dfp ...
> I'm still pondering this, but I like it better than -msoft-dfp.
Maybe its time to come to conclusion ;) As I said I've no problem to
change the options in the s390 back end if we can come to a consensus.
As Peter Bergner wrote the -mno-dfp you've added to the Power back
end can be quite misleading and this will probably be the only switch
which will actually be used. So what about Ulrichs proposal of using
-mhard-dfp/-mno-hard-dfp? I think it is quite a good compromise. It
would fit into the Power back end scheme of hardware switches and
would avoid the confusion with the -mno-dfp switch which would make a
user think that this option would disable dfp at all.
If you agree to go with -mhard-dfp/-mno-hard-dfp I would be happy to
post a patch soon.