On 17 December 2010 16:19, Andreas Färber <andreas.faer...@web.de> wrote: >> Can this patch be applied? (There are more ARM/softfloat patches >> in my queue which will break it again otherwise...) > > If we're engaging into refactoring the softfloat library, I still have a > large'ish patch lying around to fix signature mismatches between header and > sources wrt to integer arguments and migrating to POSIX integer types > (BeOS/Haiku system headers define int32 etc. differently). Browsing through > your patch it shouldn't conflict, but I guess it'll be best to have it go > through your queue to avoid troubles.
I wasn't planning to put this patch into my "ARM fixes" queue to be pulled directly, because it's a bit wider in scope than fixing things for ARM targets. (Hence the "can this be applied?" request :-)) On the types issue, at the moment softfloat uses "int32" etc for "a handy type holding at least 32 bits", and "bits32" for "exactly 32 bits". So I guess changing the 'bits' types to the POSIX int32_t and friends would be straightforward enough, but what does your patch do with the int32 types? -- PMM
