rjmccall added a comment. In D109950#3097544 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D109950#3097544>, @eandrews wrote:
> In D109950#3097161 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D109950#3097161>, @rjmccall > wrote: > >> Oh, yes, I think this should be preserving the old logic there and just >> adding a new clause for explicit requests for ibm128, right? > > I think the old logic should be preserved yes. However, I'm not sure if this > patch exposes an existing bug. LongDoubleFormat here is > llvm::semX87DoubleExtended. > > In APFloat.cpp, it is defined as - > > static const fltSemantics semX87DoubleExtended = {16383, -16382, 64, 80}; > > i.e. 80 bit size. Is this the right format for complex type specified using > mode 'TC'? I am not very familiar with floating point semantics, so I thought > I would ask. The existing logic is that `TF` and `TC` should based on `long double` if the target has a 128-bit `long double` format, and otherwise they should be based on `float128_t` if that exists, and otherwise they're invalid. We should definitely not be using `long double` when it's not a 128-bit format, like if it's the 80-bit x87 format. I do wonder whether that's the right priority between `float128_t` and a double-double `long double`. I think that particular configuration is only true for certain PPC targets; does anyone know what GCC does? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D109950/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D109950 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
