https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104194
Ulrich Weigand changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uweigand at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104194
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
A temporary workaround now applied.
The dwarf-discuss thread seems to prefer using separate DW_ATE_* values instead
of DW_AT_precision/DW_AT_minimum_exponent, but hasn't converged yet.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104194
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:866d73019bd4d1804f7e09409322e6605b81780b
commit r12-6882-g866d73019bd4d1804f7e09409322e6605b81780b
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: W
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104194
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Abusing complex fp, what a dastardly plan! :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104194
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #52277|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104194
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 52277
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52277&action=edit
gcc12-pr104194.patch
Untested patch which uses new DW_ATE_* values (DW_ATE_GNU_* ones matching
DW_ATE_HP_* val
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104194
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I've mailed a question about this to DWARF public mailing list:
http://lists.dwarfstd.org/pipermail/dwarf-discuss-dwarfstd.org/2022-January/004859.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104194
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Maybe we should say what actual mode is used in the DWARF info, not the C
way of getting there? So something that denotes DP / double-double / QP,
for our three options for long double?
