Re: [RFC/PATCH] Remove the workaround for _Float128 precision [PR107299]

2023-01-11 Thread Michael Meissner via Gcc-patches
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 07:23:23PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 10:21:52PM -0500, Michael Meissner wrote: > > I had the patches to change the precision to 128, and I just ran them. C > > and > > C++ do not seem to be bothered by changing the precision to 128 (once I got

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Remove the workaround for _Float128 precision [PR107299]

2023-01-10 Thread Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 10:21:52PM -0500, Michael Meissner wrote: > I had the patches to change the precision to 128, and I just ran them. C and > C++ do not seem to be bothered by changing the precision to 128 (once I got it > to build, etc.). But Fortran on the other hand does actually use the

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Remove the workaround for _Float128 precision [PR107299]

2023-01-09 Thread Michael Meissner via Gcc-patches
On Fri, Jan 06, 2023 at 07:41:07PM -0500, Michael Meissner wrote: > On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 09:40:24PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Dec 2022, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > > > > --- a/gcc/tree.cc > > > > +++ b/gcc/tree.cc > > > > @@ -9442,15 +9442,6 @@ build_common_tree_nodes (bool

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Remove the workaround for _Float128 precision [PR107299]

2023-01-06 Thread Michael Meissner via Gcc-patches
On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 09:40:24PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Wed, 21 Dec 2022, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > > --- a/gcc/tree.cc > > > +++ b/gcc/tree.cc > > > @@ -9442,15 +9442,6 @@ build_common_tree_nodes (bool signed_char) > > >if (!targetm.floatn_mode (n, extended).exists (&mode

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Remove the workaround for _Float128 precision [PR107299]

2023-01-03 Thread Michael Meissner via Gcc-patches
On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 09:40:24PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Wed, 21 Dec 2022, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > > --- a/gcc/tree.cc > > > +++ b/gcc/tree.cc > > > @@ -9442,15 +9442,6 @@ build_common_tree_nodes (bool signed_char) > > >if (!targetm.floatn_mode (n, extended).exists (&mode

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Remove the workaround for _Float128 precision [PR107299]

2022-12-22 Thread Segher Boessenkool
On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 07:48:28PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Thu, 22 Dec 2022, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 09:40:24PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > > > On Wed, 21 Dec 2022, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > > Joseph: what do you think about this patch? Is the workaroun

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Remove the workaround for _Float128 precision [PR107299]

2022-12-22 Thread Joseph Myers
On Thu, 22 Dec 2022, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Hi! > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 09:40:24PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Dec 2022, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > > --- a/gcc/tree.cc > > > > +++ b/gcc/tree.cc > > > > @@ -9442,15 +9442,6 @@ build_common_tree_nodes (bool signed_char) >

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Remove the workaround for _Float128 precision [PR107299]

2022-12-22 Thread Segher Boessenkool
Hi! On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 09:40:24PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Wed, 21 Dec 2022, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > --- a/gcc/tree.cc > > > +++ b/gcc/tree.cc > > > @@ -9442,15 +9442,6 @@ build_common_tree_nodes (bool signed_char) > > >if (!targetm.floatn_mode (n, extended).exists (&mo

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Remove the workaround for _Float128 precision [PR107299]

2022-12-21 Thread Kewen.Lin via Gcc-patches
Hi Joseph, on 2022/12/22 05:40, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Wed, 21 Dec 2022, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > >>> --- a/gcc/tree.cc >>> +++ b/gcc/tree.cc >>> @@ -9442,15 +9442,6 @@ build_common_tree_nodes (bool signed_char) >>>if (!targetm.floatn_mode (n, extended).exists (&mode)) >>> contin

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Remove the workaround for _Float128 precision [PR107299]

2022-12-21 Thread Kewen.Lin via Gcc-patches
Hi Segher, on 2022/12/22 05:24, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > Hi! > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 05:02:17PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote: >> This a different attempt from Mike's approach[1][2] to fix the >> issue in PR107299. > > Ke Wen, Mike: so iiuc with this patch applied all three of Mike's > patches a

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Remove the workaround for _Float128 precision [PR107299]

2022-12-21 Thread Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches
On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 09:40:24PM +, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Wed, 21 Dec 2022, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > > --- a/gcc/tree.cc > > > +++ b/gcc/tree.cc > > > @@ -9442,15 +9442,6 @@ build_common_tree_nodes (bool signed_char) > > >if (!targetm.floatn_mode (n, extended).exists (&mode

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Remove the workaround for _Float128 precision [PR107299]

2022-12-21 Thread Joseph Myers
On Wed, 21 Dec 2022, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > --- a/gcc/tree.cc > > +++ b/gcc/tree.cc > > @@ -9442,15 +9442,6 @@ build_common_tree_nodes (bool signed_char) > >if (!targetm.floatn_mode (n, extended).exists (&mode)) > > continue; > >int precision = GET_MODE_PRECISION (mode);

Re: [RFC/PATCH] Remove the workaround for _Float128 precision [PR107299]

2022-12-21 Thread Segher Boessenkool
Hi! On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 05:02:17PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote: > This a different attempt from Mike's approach[1][2] to fix the > issue in PR107299. Ke Wen, Mike: so iiuc with this patch applied all three of Mike's patches are unnecessary? > With option -mabi=ieeelongdouble specified, > type lon

[RFC/PATCH] Remove the workaround for _Float128 precision [PR107299]

2022-12-21 Thread Kewen.Lin via Gcc-patches
Hi, This a different attempt from Mike's approach[1][2] to fix the issue in PR107299. With option -mabi=ieeelongdouble specified, type long double (and __float128) and _Float128 have the same mode TFmode, but they have different type precisions, it causes the assertion to fail in function fold_us