On Sat, 4 Jan 2025, James K. Lowden wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 19:46:38 +0100
> Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > Again, the question is if it needs to be supported everywhere, or
> > just error out on targets which don't have _Float128
>
> Our preference is simply to error out on targets that don't
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 19:46:38 +0100
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Again, the question is if it needs to be supported everywhere, or
> just error out on targets which don't have _Float128
Our preference is simply to error out on targets that don't support
_Float128.
I don't know how to do that. It can
On Fri, Jan 03, 2025 at 12:03:06PM -0600, Robert Dubner wrote:
> > As has been noted, wide_int can be used for large integer arithmetic
> > within the compiler.
>
> My needs are modest; we use __int128 in only a few places in the host
> code. If __int128 were supported by 32-bit GCC, we'd would
> -Original Message-
> From: Joseph Myers
> Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2025 14:21
> To: Robert Dubner
> Cc: James K. Lowden ; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] COBOL 1/8 hdr: header files
>
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2024, Robert Dubner wrote:
>
>
On Thu, 19 Dec 2024, Robert Dubner wrote:
> At compile-time (or on the host), we also do numeric calculations. The
> ISO specification allows for compile-time computations specified in the
> source code. In addition, at times I put initial values for the COBOL
> variables into the run-time struc
> Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2024 15:18
> To: James K. Lowden
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] COBOL 1/8 hdr: header files
>
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2024, James K. Lowden wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 23:36:37 + (UTC) Joseph Myers
> > wr
On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 09:22:04PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2024, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> > Maybe it is better to just use _BitInt instead of __int128. Yes the
> > number of targets that support _BitInt for C is less than __int128 but
> > in the future _BitInt will be more supp
On Thu, 19 Dec 2024, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> Maybe it is better to just use _BitInt instead of __int128. Yes the
> number of targets that support _BitInt for C is less than __int128 but
> in the future _BitInt will be more supported than __int128 especially
> on 32bit targets. E.g. _BitInt(128) is
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024, James K. Lowden wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 23:36:37 + (UTC)
> Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> > > +extern "C" _Float128 __gg__float128_from_qualified_field
> >
> > I'm not entirely sure whether this is host or target code (you always
> > need to be clear about which is which
On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 11:31 AM James K. Lowden
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 23:36:37 + (UTC)
> Joseph Myers wrote:
>
> > > +extern "C" _Float128 __gg__float128_from_qualified_field
> >
> > I'm not entirely sure whether this is host or target code (you always
> > need to be clear about wh
On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 23:36:37 + (UTC)
Joseph Myers wrote:
> > +extern "C" _Float128 __gg__float128_from_qualified_field
>
> I'm not entirely sure whether this is host or target code (you always
> need to be clear about which is which in GCC), but in any case, both
> hosts and targets without
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024, James K. Lowden wrote:
> +static char name[PATH_MAX];
Static buffers with a PATH_MAX size will probably break the build on Hurd
host.
> +__int128 get_power_of_ten(int n);
GCC supports 32-bit hosts; you shouldn't rely on __int128 being available
on the host.
> +exter
12 matches
Mail list logo
