On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 01:45:06PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:49:41PM -0500, Michael Meissner wrote: > > Define __SIZEOF_FLOAT128__ and __SIZEOF_IBM128__. > > > > Define the sizes of the PowerPC specific types __float128 and __ibm128 if > > those > > types are enabled. > > This is very silly of course, both of these are 16 bytes. Abusing this > to see if the types exist is at least as silly (there are much better > mechanisms to do this).
This is just trying to close out the PR that people asked for. > So, this facilitates bad habits and bad code. But, whatever, the macros > are just stating totally obvious and redundant facts, no problem, let's > just ignore that pepople only want it to abuse it. > > > gcc/ > > PR target/99708 > > * config/rs6000/rs6000-c.cc (rs6000_target_modify_macros): Define > > __SIZEOF_FLOAT128__ and __SIZEOF_IBM128__ if we have float128 > > support. > > No. __SIZEOF_IBM128__ should be defined if and only if __ibm128 is > defined. In the current implementation, __ibm128 is only defined if __float128 was defined. I did have patches 6 months or so to define __ibm128 on any system with IBM 128-bit long double. But those were never applied to the trunk. > This should be tested directly, it should not depend on that some other > code did what it does today. That would also make the code much more > obvious. Given __float128 and __ibm128 are defined at the same time, I don't see the need for a separate target-supports.exp test, and so forth. But if you want that, I can easily do it. -- Michael Meissner, IBM PO Box 98, Ayer, Massachusetts, USA, 01432 email: meiss...@linux.ibm.com
