On Mon, 1 Aug 2016, Richard Biener wrote: > > Correct expansion of abs or copysign for IBM long double (i.e., for the > > case where signbit_rw for the format is -1) requires special logic for > > that format; inhibiting particular incorrect expansion code may cause an > > external function call to be used in place of an incorrect inline > > expansion, but that won't help if you care about avoiding such a function > > call to fabsl or copysignl. The logic for IBM long double isn't that > > complicated - a few bitwise manipulations - but we don't have it at > > present (for that soft-float case). > > So I read your comment as a general remark and not as an objection > to the patch in question?
Yes. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
