eandrews added a comment. In D109950#3097652 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D109950#3097652>, @rjmccall wrote:
> 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 do wonder whether that's the right priority between `float128_t` and a > double-double `long double`. I think that particular configuration only > exists on certain PPC targets; does anyone know what GCC does? I don't know what GCC does and am not really sure how to go about figuring it out. I've uploaded a patch preserving old logic for review here - https://reviews.llvm.org/D112975. If I should do something different, please let me know. Thank you for your input! 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
