This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: __LDBL_MAX__ exceeds range of 'long double'

From: James E Wilson <wilson at specifixinc dot com>
To: Jonathan Wakely <cow at compsoc dot man dot ac dot uk>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 20:46:12 -0800
Subject: Re: __LDBL_MAX__ exceeds range of 'long double'
References: <20050217132230.GA29486@compsoc.man.ac.uk> <421ABFAE.40005@specifixinc.com> <20050302180703.GA13445@compsoc.man.ac.uk>

Jonathan Wakely wrote:

Sorry for the late reply. It does indeed fix the problem I saw with 4.0
on FreeBSD, but I'm now seeing this with 3.4.4 20050228 too, so I think
it's a regression introduced in the last 6 weeks or so.
Is the same fix safe to apply to 3.4?

Yes, it should also be safe for gcc-3.4.

This problem was exposed in gcc-3.4 by this patch, which is presumably the same patch that exposed this on mainline.

2004-11-12 Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>


        PR 17778
        * config/i386/i386.h (TARGET_96_ROUND_53_LONG_DOUBLE): New.
        * config/i386/freebsd.h (SUBTARGET_OVERRIDE_OPTIONS): Remove.
        (TARGET_96_ROUND_53_LONG_DOUBLE): New.
        * config/i386/i386-modes.def (XF): Use it.

My patch is needed to make this work with -E or --save-temps. Since this is a clear regression, and a relatively safe patch, I will test the patch with gcc-3.4 and then check it in if there is no problem. -- Jim Wilson, GNU Tools Support, http://www.SpecifixInc.com

References:
- Re: __LDBL_MAX__ exceeds range of 'long double'
  - From: Jonathan Wakely

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