On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 19:17 +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On Wed, 17 Jun 2015, Steve Ellcey wrote: > > FAOD I meant to remove the checks globally throughout MIPS target code > only. > > > Is there any reason why my patch (minus the HONOR_NAN checks) would have > > to wait for the other changes? > > Because it combines two functionally independent changes: > > 1. HONOR_NAN check removal. > > 2. FMA support addition. > > Worse yet, syntactically overlapping, so that e.g. it's impossible to > bisect the cause of any possible regression caused without reconstructing > the two changes from the patch committed if it went in as a single change. > > Maciej
OK, that makes more sense. I misunderstood what you were originally saying. Steve Ellcey sell...@imgtec.com
