https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113993
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4) > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3) > > Created attachment 57467 [details] > > gcc14-pr113993-wip.patch > > > > WIP patch. > > I know this might be a stupid question but I notice this handles 96 and > 128bit but not double double support. Or the fall back to the double enough > for that? As documented, it can be conservatively smaller. I've left out e.g. the motorola extended (which has exponent range -16382 to 16384 rather than -16381 to 16384 like intel extended or IEEE quad has) and the *BSD Intel as well, though I bet unnecessarily. Seems all the get_no_error_domain stuff actually only cares about is the maximum exponent (which is why all the Intel extended long double domains are the same as IEEE quad). So, maybe I should simplify it by doing (for whatever being long_double or float64x): if (REAL_MODE_FORMAT (TYPE_MODE (whatever_type_node))->emax == 16384) return get_no_error_domain (BUILT_IN_WHATEVERF128); return get_no_error_domain (BUILT_IN_WHATEVERF64); Anyway, given that ibm extended has emax 1024 like double (obviously it can't have higher exponent than double), the double versions are actually exact, not conservatively correct.
