On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Richard Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The size of the C type "double" is controlled by DOUBLE_TYPE_SIZE,
> not the size of the compiler mode "DFmode". This macro is referring
> to the latter -- a double-precision floating point mode.
>
>
> r~
>
Richard,
I
Omar Torres wrote:
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_TYP
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
"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
Hi All,
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?
In the target I am currently working, DOUBLE_TYPE_SIZE is defined
