On 10/10/18 6:35 AM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Oct 10 2018, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> On 10/10/2018 13:17, Martin Jambor wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 26 2018, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Wed, 26 Sep 2018, Martin Jambor wrote:
> I see, I guess the easiest is to skip the
On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 at 14:35, Martin Jambor wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Oct 10 2018, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > On 10/10/2018 13:17, Martin Jambor wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 26 2018, Joseph Myers wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2018, Martin Jambor wrote:
> >>>
> I see, I guess the easie
Hi,
On Wed, Oct 10 2018, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On 10/10/2018 13:17, Martin Jambor wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 26 2018, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>> On Wed, 26 Sep 2018, Martin Jambor wrote:
>>>
I see, I guess the easiest is to skip the test on targets that do not
really have long doubl
On 10/10/2018 13:17, Martin Jambor wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 26 2018, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Wed, 26 Sep 2018, Martin Jambor wrote:
I see, I guess the easiest is to skip the test on targets that do not
really have long double, although if someone thinks that is too
restrictive, I can also split
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 26 2018, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2018, Martin Jambor wrote:
>
>> I see, I guess the easiest is to skip the test on targets that do not
>> really have long double, although if someone thinks that is too
>> restrictive, I can also split the test again and move long doubl
On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 at 20:48, Christophe Lyon
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 at 17:26, Martin Jambor wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 26 2018, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > > On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 at 17:50, Martin Jambor wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Sep 24 2018, Christophe Lyo
On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 at 17:26, Martin Jambor wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Sep 26 2018, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 at 17:50, Martin Jambor wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 24 2018, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 at 20:46, Martin Jambor wrote:
> >> >>
On Wed, 26 Sep 2018, Martin Jambor wrote:
> I see, I guess the easiest is to skip the test on targets that do not
> really have long double, although if someone thinks that is too
> restrictive, I can also split the test again and move long double bits
> to a separate test.
You should be able to
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 26 2018, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 at 17:50, Martin Jambor wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 24 2018, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> > On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 at 20:46, Martin Jambor wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> the test added to check whether _Float128 types are
On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 at 17:50, Martin Jambor wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Sep 24 2018, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 at 20:46, Martin Jambor wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> the test added to check whether _Float128 types are handled correctly by
> >> the new warning about suspicious
On 9/24/18 12:45 PM, Martin Jambor wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the test added to check whether _Float128 types are handled correctly by
> the new warning about suspicious calls to abs-like functions fails on
> many platforms. The patch below circumvents the problem by running on
> i686/x86_64 only. I under
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 24 2018, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 at 20:46, Martin Jambor wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> the test added to check whether _Float128 types are handled correctly by
>> the new warning about suspicious calls to abs-like functions fails on
>> many platforms. The patch belo
On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 at 20:46, Martin Jambor wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> the test added to check whether _Float128 types are handled correctly by
> the new warning about suspicious calls to abs-like functions fails on
> many platforms. The patch below circumvents the problem by running on
> i686/x86_64 onl
On Sep 24, 2018, at 11:45 AM, Martin Jambor wrote:
>
> the test added to check whether _Float128 types are handled correctly by
> the new warning about suspicious calls to abs-like functions fails on
> many platforms. The patch below circumvents the problem by running on
> i686/x86_64 only. I u
Hi,
the test added to check whether _Float128 types are handled correctly by
the new warning about suspicious calls to abs-like functions fails on
many platforms. The patch below circumvents the problem by running on
i686/x86_64 only. I understand that the proper solution would be to
come up wit
15 matches
Mail list logo