On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 at 11:21, David Brown wrote:
> On 20/04/2021 08:54, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> > Hi GCC developers,
> >
> > just to further clarify why I think the current Steering Committee is
> highly problematic,
> > I'd like you to give a look at this commit
> > message over Linux MAINTAINERS
On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 05:59, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Ian Lance Taylor :
> > Patronizing or infantilizing anybody doesn't come into this at all.
>
> I am not even *remotely* persuaded of this. This whole attitude that if
> a woman is ever exposed to a man with less than perfect American
> upper
On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 at 03:13, Chris Punches via Gcc wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've been reading quietly on how the GCC SC handles this and generally
> only lurk here so that I can stay informed on GCC changes. I am nobody
> you would probably care about, but, maybe I will be one day. No one
> ever re
On 16 May 2018 at 22:17, Kalamatee wrote:
> Hi,
>
> After hunting out a problem using the softloat code on m68k, with the
> assistance of the WinUAE author (Toni Wilen) we think we have noticed a bug
> dating back to 1994.
>
> Laddsf$nf returns values with the wrong sign,
Hi,
After hunting out a problem using the softloat code on m68k, with the
assistance of the WinUAE author (Toni Wilen) we think we have noticed a bug
dating back to 1994.
Laddsf$nf returns values with the wrong sign, because it clears the sign
bit, before caching the wrong value and then attempti
