On Wed, 11 May 2011 15:27:37 +0000 (UTC) "Joseph S. Myers" <jos...@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2011, Julian Brown wrote: > > > There's currently no support for "long long" fixed-point types, > > since those imply support for TImode arithmetic, which isn't > > sensible on ARM. I've modified tests to make optional the > > requirement for long long support. > > I wonder how those tests work, or don't work, on 32-bit MIPS, which > ought to have the same issue.... Well they do seem to work, though I haven't investigated why. > Is there a reason for having a separate function, rather than just > using hook_bool_void_true (with this comment going on the definition > of TARGET_FIXED_POINT_SUPPORTED_P)? > > I don't see any change to the code in gcc/configure.ac that handles > --enable-fixed-point to know that ARM targets now support it. Since > the default hook returns ENABLE_FIXED_POINT, maybe if you fixed the > configure test you wouldn't need to define the hook for ARM at all.... I've done the latter: note you'll now need to configure with "--enable-fixed-point" to turn fixed-point on for ARM. > It might make sense to send the machine-independent parts separately, > under a separate subject heading, with an explanation for why each > bit is needed. I've done this (and the other bits you pointed out). See: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-05/msg00964.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-05/msg00965.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-05/msg00966.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-05/msg00967.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-05/msg00969.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-05/msg00968.html Cheers, Julian
