https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78804
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78804
--- Comment #19 from Oleg Endo ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sun Nov 3 12:09:26 2019
New Revision: 277752
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=277752&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
libgcc/
PR libgcc/78804
* fp-bit.h: Remove FLOAT_BIT_ORDER
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78804
--- Comment #18 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Claudiu Zissulescu from comment #17)
> Removing FLOAT_BIT_ORDER_MISMATCH seems it doesn't affect ARC backend as
> well.
Thanks for checking and confirming!
The patch in attachment 41982 has been t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78804
--- Comment #17 from Claudiu Zissulescu ---
Removing FLOAT_BIT_ORDER_MISMATCH seems it doesn't affect ARC backend as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78804
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78804
--- Comment #12 from Claudiu Zissulescu ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #11)
> I'm confused. Who is actually the effective maintainer of ARC? All the
> patches on gcc-patches seem to go like
Hi,
I am the effective ARC maintainer, jus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78804
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78804
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrew.burgess at embecosm dot
com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78804
--- Comment #9 from Oleg Endo ---
Created attachment 41982
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41982&action=edit
Proposed patch
I'd propose to remove the FLOAT_BIT_ORDER_MISMATCH stuff altogether. It's more
portable to use shif
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78804
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||joseph at codesourcery dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78804
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo ---
Created attachment 41981
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41981&action=edit
Disassembled DF code of comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78804
--- Comment #6 from Oleg Endo ---
Created attachment 41980
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41980&action=edit
Disassembled SF code of comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78804
--- Comment #5 from Oleg Endo ---
I have checked with the following simplified test code:
#include
int main (void)
{
volatile float testval = 1;
// volatile double testval = 1;
testval = testval + 1;
return ((const uint8_t*)&testval)[
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78804
--- Comment #4 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #2)
>
> So what I suspect is that something is missing from the rx libgcc
> configuration files (libgcc/config/rx/t-rx and/or libgcc/config/rx/rx-lib.h)
> which means that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78804
--- Comment #3 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to Nick Clifton from comment #2)
>
> It is almost certainly a bug in the RX specific parts of the libgcc
> configuration
>
> It is unlikely that the actual code for the _COM_CONVd32s function is w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78804
--- Comment #2 from Nick Clifton ---
Hi Oleg,
> Nick, maybe you have an idea what's wrong here?
It is almost certainly a bug in the RX specific parts of the libgcc
configuration
What happens is that GCC calls the function _COM_CONVd32s to
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78804
Oleg Endo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from
17 matches
Mail list logo
