[Bug c/46041] __FP_FAST_FMA not defined with -E

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46041 Michael Meissner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug c/46041] __FP_FAST_FMA not defined with -E

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46041 --- Comment #9 from Michael Meissner 2010-10-18 22:37:36 UTC --- Author: meissner Date: Mon Oct 18 22:37:32 2010 New Revision: 165666 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=165666 Log: Fix PR 46041 Modified: trunk/gcc/ChangeL

[Bug c/46041] __FP_FAST_FMA not defined with -E

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46041 --- Comment #8 from Michael Meissner 2010-10-18 20:01:24 UTC --- Created attachment 22083 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22083 Patch that redefines mode_has_fma so that it works with -save-temps

[Bug c/46041] __FP_FAST_FMA not defined with -E

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46041 --- Comment #7 from Michael Meissner 2010-10-18 16:21:31 UTC --- Yes, though the issue originally came up in terms of the pragma and not the attribute, because people wanted to include the various include files that had #ifdef's to guard against

[Bug c/46041] __FP_FAST_FMA not defined with -E

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46041 --- Comment #6 from Richard Henderson 2010-10-18 16:12:21 UTC --- Does anyone honestly expect a pre-processor macro to change due to attributes on a function? I sure don't -- that would seem to be a clear translation phase ordering violation. S

[Bug c/46041] __FP_FAST_FMA not defined with -E

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46041 Michael Meissner changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed|2010-10-18 15:11:54 | AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc

[Bug c/46041] __FP_FAST_FMA not defined with -E

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46041 Michael Meissner changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED Last reconfirmed|

[Bug c/46041] __FP_FAST_FMA not defined with -E

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46041 --- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2010-10-16 09:43:25 UTC --- Hm, the question is if it is a good idea anyway given the target and optimization attributes.

[Bug c/46041] __FP_FAST_FMA not defined with -E

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46041 --- Comment #3 from Richard Henderson 2010-10-15 23:02:26 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > Doesn't that mean -save-temps is also broken? Yes.

[Bug c/46041] __FP_FAST_FMA not defined with -E

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46041 --- Comment #2 from Richard Henderson 2010-10-15 23:01:19 UTC --- I think the easiest solution is to simply do switch (mode) { case SFmode: #ifdef HAVE_fmasf4 return HAVE_fmasf4; #endif break; ... } return false;

[Bug c/46041] __FP_FAST_FMA not defined with -E

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46041 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2010-10-15 22:59:10 UTC --- Doesn't that mean -save-temps is also broken?