Are Decimal operations are fully implemented/tested ?

2012-09-12 Thread Hesham Moustafa
Hey, I want to inquire about the state of decimal floating point operations at gcc low-level library. Does gcc fully implement IEEE 754-2008 standard ? I know that gcc support _Decimal64 / _Decimal128 as a decimal types and i did some simple operations on it. Also i want to be sure if the current

Re: GCC's Decimal Floating Point extension problem

2012-09-12 Thread Vincent Lefevre
On 2012-09-11 11:34:58 -0700, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Mohamed Abou Samra > wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > I'm trying to write a small program to check the decimal floating > > point gcc extension but I encountered some problems > > > > The program just converts a _Decimal64

Re: Are Decimal operations are fully implemented/tested ?

2012-09-12 Thread Vincent Lefevre
On 2012-09-12 11:29:41 +0300, Hesham Moustafa wrote: > I want to inquire about the state of decimal floating point operations > at gcc low-level library. > Does gcc fully implement IEEE 754-2008 standard ? No. Even for binary-only it doesn't (though it almost does). Also note that some parts of IE

Re: Cgraph Modification Plan

2012-09-12 Thread Diego Novillo
On 2012-09-11 16:22 , Lawrence Crowl wrote: We do not yet seem to have consensus on a long term plan. Would it be reasonable to start on short term prepatory work? In particular, I was think we could do Add converters and testers. Change callers to use those. and maybe Change call

Re: Are Decimal operations are fully implemented/tested ?

2012-09-12 Thread Hesham Moustafa
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2012-09-12 11:29:41 +0300, Hesham Moustafa wrote: >> I want to inquire about the state of decimal floating point operations >> at gcc low-level library. >> Does gcc fully implement IEEE 754-2008 standard ? > > No. Even for binary-only it

Re: Cgraph Modification Plan

2012-09-12 Thread Jan Hubicka
> We do not yet seem to have consensus on a long term plan. > Would it be reasonable to start on short term prepatory work? > > In particular, I was think we could do > >Add converters and testers. >Change callers to use those. > > and maybe > >Change callers to use type-safe parame

Re: gfortran error: Statement order error: declaration after DATA

2012-09-12 Thread Tim Prince
On 9/11/2012 5:46 PM, David N. Bradley wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I am trying to compile the cactuscode package and can not get past the error : Statement order error: declaration after DATA can you point me in the direction of a fix. I included offending file as a

Re: variable tracking vs. delay slots question

2012-09-12 Thread Steve Ellcey
On Tue, 2012-09-11 at 20:20 -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > > These requirements seem to conflict. Am I right about this or are the > > comments wrong or am I confused? I think this problem is the basis of > > bug 54128, a bootstrap failure on MIPS, though the problem seems generic > > to any system wi

Re: contrib/config-list.mk

2012-09-12 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > I don't know whether contrib/config-list.mk is dead or not. But I do > know that you will only get that error on Debian or Ubuntu systems, > which by default pass some rather aggressive warning options. contrib/config-list.mk is meant to be used wit

Re: GCC stack backtraces

2012-09-12 Thread Diego Novillo
On Thu Aug 30 16:18:47 2012, Lawrence Crowl wrote: Diego already loves it! Indeed I do! I'm making changes in VEC that will benefit from this. I am currently keeping the VEC_* macros so that I can pass __FUNCTION__, __LINE__ to the methods that want it. But it would be nice if we could ge

An interesting conversation or usual day without something new? I would rather choose the first one. What do u think?)

2012-09-12 Thread Jacklyn Browne
Hey gorgeous! My name is Jacklyn. If you looking forward about having great time in a company of smart, cute female then I am right before u! I liked your photo shots and that's why decided to create this message! I am thinking that u wouldn't stay indifferent after checking up mine too. So, I

Re: GCC stack backtraces

2012-09-12 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Diego Novillo wrote: > Alternately, we could use Richi's approach I suppose (what happened to that > patch, btw)? I was under the impression that the patch was good to go in; Richard? -- Gaby

Re: GCC stack backtraces

2012-09-12 Thread rguenther
Diego Novillo wrote: >On Thu Aug 30 16:18:47 2012, Lawrence Crowl wrote: > >> Diego already loves it! > >Indeed I do! > >I'm making changes in VEC that will benefit from this. I am currently >keeping the VEC_* macros so that I can pass __FUNCTION__, __LINE__ to >the methods that want it. But

Re: GCC stack backtraces

2012-09-12 Thread Diego Novillo
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:31 PM, wrote: > Only of the checking parts, right? Not of the mem stat ones. Correct. I'm thinking mostly of operator[]. > I have to get back to it. Maybe tomorrow ... Great, thanks. I will keep the macros around for now. They can be removed later. Diego.

Re: GCC stack backtraces

2012-09-12 Thread Ian Lance Taylor
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Diego Novillo wrote: > On Thu Aug 30 16:18:47 2012, Lawrence Crowl wrote: > >> Diego already loves it! > > > Indeed I do! > > I'm making changes in VEC that will benefit from this. I am currently > keeping the VEC_* macros so that I can pass __FUNCTION__, __LINE__

Re: Cgraph Modification Plan

2012-09-12 Thread Lawrence Crowl
On 9/12/12, Jan Hubicka wrote: >> We do not yet seem to have consensus on a long term plan. >> Would it be reasonable to start on short term prepatory work? >> >> In particular, I was think we could do >> >>Add converters and testers. >>Change callers to use those. >> >> and maybe >> >>