| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] define WIDEST_HARDWARE_FP_SIZE on mips |
|---|---|
| From: | Richard Sandiford |
| Date: | Mon, 02 Mar 2009 20:09:09 +0000 |
Laurent GUERBY <laurent@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > I did not see Olivier patch commit, what was the choosen solution on > this issue? (grep WIDEST on config/mips return no result) Right. This probably isn't what you want to hear, but you successfully found the last message on the issue. ;) The open question (to me) is why Olivier's original testcase failed with 128-bit long double. I'm not sure anyone has really explained that. If you're in a position to debug the failing tests and figure out what's going wrong, that'd be a big help. Richard |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [PATCH] Fix __builtin_object_size (x, 1) regression (PR tree-optimization/39343), Jakub Jelinek |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] Fix PR39339, wrong-code from SRA with bitfields, Alexandre Oliva |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] define WIDEST_HARDWARE_FP_SIZE on mips, Laurent GUERBY |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] define WIDEST_HARDWARE_FP_SIZE on mips, Laurent GUERBY |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |