This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: Patch to libgcc2.h
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: RFC: Patch to libgcc2.h
- From: Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:54:26 -0600
- cc: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Reply-To: law at cygnus dot com
In message <20000615185025.I474@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz>you write:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 09:25:23AM -0700, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > Jakub's December 27 patch to libgcc2.c broke a lot of libgcc bits for
> > 16-bit targets; the #defines to change, say, the definition of
> > __floatdisf to actually define __floatsisf produced conflicts with
> > better versions from libgcc1 and fp-bit.c. In the case I've been
> > looking at, that definition was used rather than the one from
> > fp-bit.c, and so any code that needed to use __floatsisf ended up
> > going into an infinite recursion.
>
> Won't it break c4x?
> I posted a patch which removed just MIN_UNITS_PER_WORD == 2 changes and kep
> t
> MIN_UNITS_PER_WORD == 1 to make c4x happy, but there was no feedback on it.
As I've stated before, I think changing the names of the routines based
on the word size is wrong. I'd like to see a solution which does not do that.
If that means we have to add more routines to fp-bit.c & friends, then I think
we can do that pretty easily.
jeff