On Sat, 24 Sep 2022 19:13:36 PDT (-0700), san...@codesourcery.com wrote:
On 9/18/22 02:47, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2022 02:46:40 PDT (-0700), Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
I just happened to stuble on this one while trying to sort out the
RISC-V bits.
gcc/ChangeLog
* doc/tm.texi (TARGET_C_EXCESS_PRECISION): Add 16.
---
gcc/doc/tm.texi | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gcc/doc/tm.texi b/gcc/doc/tm.texi
index 858bfb80cec..7590924f2ca 100644
--- a/gcc/doc/tm.texi
+++ b/gcc/doc/tm.texi
@@ -1009,7 +1009,7 @@ of the excess precision explicitly added. For
@code{EXCESS_PRECISION_TYPE_FLOAT16}, and
@code{EXCESS_PRECISION_TYPE_FAST}, the target should return the
explicit excess precision that should be added depending on the
-value set for @option{-fexcess-precision=@r{[}standard@r{|}fast@r{]}}.
+value set for
@option{-fexcess-precision=@r{[}standard@r{|}fast@r{|}16@r{]}}.
Note that unpredictable explicit excess precision does not make sense,
so a target should never return @code{FLT_EVAL_METHOD_UNPREDICTABLE}
when @var{type} is @code{EXCESS_PRECISION_TYPE_STANDARD},
Just pinging this one as I'm not sure if it's OK to self-approve -- no
rush on my end, I already figured it out so I don't need the
documentation any more.
This is fine, looks like a trivial correction.
Thanks, committed.
