On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 07:25:35PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> FWIW, keeping this as much like the upstream sources as possible seems
> desirable to me; I'd probably do the C++ comments and leave it at that,
> just to ease future merges. But, that's just my two cents.
I suggest asking upstream
Janis Johnson wrote:
>> But it looks like libdecnumber is processed in stage 1. What if the
>> stage 1 compiler doesn't handle C++ comments?
>
> Right, decNumber is used in the C compiler and it's the C++ comments
> that convinced me of the need to modify the sources. While I'm at it I
> might
On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 17:01 -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 07:51:43PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 01:33:37PM -0700, Janis Johnson wrote:
> > > This version of decNumber is quite different from what's currently in
> > > GCC. The pristine version of
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 07:51:43PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 01:33:37PM -0700, Janis Johnson wrote:
> > This version of decNumber is quite different from what's currently in
> > GCC. The pristine version of the sources uses C++-style comments and
> > CRLF, so I plan
On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 01:33:37PM -0700, Janis Johnson wrote:
> This version of decNumber is quite different from what's currently in
> GCC. The pristine version of the sources uses C++-style comments and
> CRLF, so I plan to use the following filter before checking in the
> updated files:
>
>
On Wed, 2007-08-29 at 13:33 -0700, Janis Johnson wrote:
> Before the end of Stage 2 I'd like to upgrade the decNumber sources in
> GCC to version 3.50, [...]
If everyone is okay with this as a stage 2 project, then I support this
upgrade, too. Thanks for doing this, Janis.
Ben
--
Ben Elliston
Before the end of Stage 2 I'd like to upgrade the decNumber sources in
GCC to version 3.50, make minor changes to the compiler to handle an
endianness change, and change config/dfp-bit.[ch] to use new support
in decNumber to perform some calculations directly on the DPD format
rather than on the in