This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
[PING] Re: [PATCH] ARM half-precision floating point, 5/8 (detect constant overflow)
- From: Sandra Loosemore <sandra at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail 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 10:56:07 -0400
- Subject: [PING] Re: [PATCH] ARM half-precision floating point, 5/8 (detect constant overflow)
- References: <49E65E6F.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
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 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
* fold-const.c (fold_convert_const_real_from_real): Check for
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
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.
Here's a pointer to the original patch post: