What is the effect of this change? The original code intended to have "float"
mean a 32 bit value, and "double" a 64 bit value. There aren't any larger
floats, so I defined the long double size as 64 also. Is the right answer not
to define it?
That part I understand, but why does the patch also remove FLOAT_TYPE_SIZE and
DOUBLE_TYPE_SIZE without explanation and without mention in the changelog?
paul
> On Jun 13, 2024, at 3:16 AM, Kewen.Lin <li...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Gentle ping:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-June/653368.html
>
> BR,
> Kewen
>
> on 2024/6/3 11:01, Kewen Lin wrote:
>> This is to remove macro LONG_DOUBLE_TYPE_SIZE define
>> in pdp11 port.
>>
>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>
>> * config/pdp11/pdp11.h (LONG_DOUBLE_TYPE_SIZE): Remove.
>> ---
>> gcc/config/pdp11/pdp11.h | 11 -----------
>> 1 file changed, 11 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/gcc/config/pdp11/pdp11.h b/gcc/config/pdp11/pdp11.h
>> index 2446fea0b58..6c8e045bc57 100644
>> --- a/gcc/config/pdp11/pdp11.h
>> +++ b/gcc/config/pdp11/pdp11.h
>> @@ -71,17 +71,6 @@ along with GCC; see the file COPYING3. If not see
>> #define LONG_TYPE_SIZE 32
>> #define LONG_LONG_TYPE_SIZE 64
>>
>> -/* In earlier versions, FLOAT_TYPE_SIZE was selectable as 32 or 64,
>> - but that conflicts with Fortran language rules. Since there is no
>> - obvious reason why we should have that feature -- other targets
>> - generally don't have float and double the same size -- I've removed
>> - it. Note that it continues to be true (for now) that arithmetic is
>> - always done with 64-bit values, i.e., the FPU is always in "double"
>> - mode. */
>> -#define FLOAT_TYPE_SIZE 32
>> -#define DOUBLE_TYPE_SIZE 64
>> -#define LONG_DOUBLE_TYPE_SIZE 64
>> -
>> /* machine types from ansi */
>> #define SIZE_TYPE "short unsigned int" /* definition of size_t */
>> #define WCHAR_TYPE "short int" /* or long int???? */
>
>
>
