On Jul 23, 2005, at 6:40 AM, Tobias Schlüter wrote:
I have a strong suspicion there is a reason why the two are linked,
and that that reason is FORTRAN. A lot of FORTRAN code assumes
EQUIVALENCE of floating-point and integer types of equal size. Such
code will in all likelyhood break if those
Mark Kettenis wrote:
>From: Dale Johannesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:56:01 -0700
>
>On x86 currently the alignments of double and long long are linked:
>they are either 4 or 8 depending on whether -malign-double is set.
>This follows the documentation of -
From: Dale Johannesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:56:01 -0700
On x86 currently the alignments of double and long long are linked:
they are either 4 or 8 depending on whether -malign-double is set.
This follows the documentation of -malign-double. But it's wrong fo
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 05:21:58PM -0700, Dale Johannesen wrote:
> >Nah, you just remove it from target_flags, and control the two
> >new variables from ix86_handle_option.
>
> OK. Think that's the better approach?
*shrug* It's not horrible, I guess. It preseves existing
semantics when people
On Jul 21, 2005, at 5:00 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 04:56:01PM -0700, Dale Johannesen wrote:
- Have flags work as now: -malign-double makes both 8,
-mno-align-double
makes both 4. Problem with that is the default is neither of these,
and
this doesn't fit neatly
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 04:56:01PM -0700, Dale Johannesen wrote:
> - Have flags work as now: -malign-double makes both 8,
> -mno-align-double
> makes both 4. Problem with that is the default is neither of these,
> and
> this doesn't fit neatly into gcc's model of two-valued flags; it's
> a
