https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19779
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19779
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mueller at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19779
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dev at umlaeute dot mur.at
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19779
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Nobody is blocking proper double double evaluation support. But somebody needs
to do the work, spend a few weeks on it and submit that. I'm just saying that
is highly unlikely. If somebody was really both
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19779
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Then the maintainers or users of those targets should consider contributing a
fix.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19779
--- Comment #11 from Sergey Fedorov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> Unlikely to be ever fixed, at least Linux has migrated to IEEE quad long
> double on powerpc64le.
Perhaps several *BSDs and AIX are using IBM format though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19779
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #9)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> > (In reply to Sergey Fedorov from comment #6)
> > > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #0)
> > > > This is the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19779
--- Comment #9 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #8)
> (In reply to Sergey Fedorov from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #0)
> > > This is the new bug for PR 19405. Keeping track of that we no lon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19779
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Sergey Fedorov from comment #6)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #0)
> > This is the new bug for PR 19405. Keeping track of that we no longer
> > constant fold long doubles in the
> > I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19779
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Unlikely to be ever fixed, at least Linux has migrated to IEEE quad long double
on powerpc64le.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19779
--- Comment #6 from Sergey Fedorov ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #0)
> This is the new bug for PR 19405. Keeping track of that we no longer
> constant fold long doubles in the
> IBM 128bit long double format.
What is the current s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19779
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Sebastian at SSpaeth dot de
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19779
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liushuyu011 at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19779
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Yeah, I'm not asking for it to be fixed, just noting here that it affects C++
constant expressions.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19779
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19779
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||redi at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed||1
Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-02-
--
What|Removed |Added
Summary|IBM 128bit long double |IBM 128bit long double
|format is not constant |format is not constant
18 matches
Mail list logo
