On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Michael Meissner wrote: > > I don't think that, given the availability of fmaf128 etc. built-in > > functions with appropriate options, whether __FP_FAST_* are defined should > > actually depend on whether the user has passed options to disable those > > functions (after all, it doesn't for the existing fma / fmaf / fmal, and > > individual built-in functions can be disabled with -fno-builtin-<function> > > so the logic you have wouldn't work to detect whether the built-in > > function is disabled anyway). > > Ok, I will add a check to see if the functions are disabled.
My suggestion is to *remove* the checks in this patch for built-in functions being enabled. That is, to have logic for __FP_FAST_* for these functions exactly the same as for __FP_FAST_FMA, which still gets defined with -std=c90 even though that disables fma as a built-in function while leaving __builtin_fma. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
