Hello, Kewen, Thanks for the feedback.
On Mar 27, 2023, "Kewen.Lin" <li...@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > on 2023/3/25 16:37, Alexandre Oliva via Gcc-patches wrote: >> >> When long double is 64-bit wide, as on vxworks, the rs6000 backend >> defines neither the __ibm128 type nor the __SIZEOF_IBM128__ macro, but >> pr99708.c expected both to be always defined. Adjust the test to >> match the implementation. > There is one patch from Mike to define type __ibm128 even without > IEEE 128-bit floating point support, it's at the link: > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2022-August/599984.html > I would expect this issue would be gone if the adjustment on the > support of type __ibm128 gets landed in future. Yeah, the issue would then be gone, but the patch is compatible with that proposed change: if __ibm128 and the corresponding SIZEOF macro are defined, the proposed change is a no-op. > So maybe we can just xfail this for longdouble64? What do you > think? I wouldn't object to that, and I could even write and test the alternate patch for that, but I fail to understand why that would be more desirable. Would you be so kind as to enlighten me? Thanks, -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/ Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but very few check the facts. Ask me about <https://stallmansupport.org>
