On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Omar Torres" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Shouldn't this macro: >> #define REAL_VALUE_TO_TARGET_DOUBLE(IN, OUT) \ >> real_to_target (OUT, &(IN), mode_for_size (64, MODE_FLOAT, 0)) >> >> be using DOUBLE_TYPE_SIZE instead of the hard coded '64'? Am I missing >> something here? > > That would certainly be more logical. In order to make that change, > you would have to consider each use of the macro to confirm that the > change would be valid. > > >> In the target I am currently working, DOUBLE_TYPE_SIZE is defined as >> 32-bit, so the hard-coded '64' is causing trouble. I am planning on >> doing this change on my local source tree, but wanted to discuss with >> the community to see if there is some implementations details somewhere >> that I need to consider as well. > > As far as I can see, all but one use of this macro is in target > dependent code. Are you having trouble from the single target > independent use? Or perhaps your target dependent code should just > use REAL_VALUE_TO_TARGET_SINGLE instead? > > Ian > Both. Yes, I can use REAL_VALUE_TO_TARGET_SINGLE in the target dependent files to work around this. I do not see a similar solution for the target independent code, since the size mismatch cause the incorrect format (encode/decode functions) to be use.
Thanks, -Omar
