On Thu, 29 May 2014 11:16:52 +0100
Julian Brown wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 14:47:54 +0100
> Julian Brown wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:54:57 +0100
> > Paul Brook wrote:
> >
> > > > But, that means EABI-conformant callers are also perfectly
> > > > entitled to sign-extend half-float va
On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 14:47:54 +0100
Julian Brown wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:54:57 +0100
> Paul Brook wrote:
>
> > > But, that means EABI-conformant callers are also perfectly
> > > entitled to sign-extend half-float values before calling our
> > > helper functions (although GCC itself won't
On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:54:57 +0100
Paul Brook wrote:
> > But, that means EABI-conformant callers are also perfectly entitled
> > to sign-extend half-float values before calling our helper functions
> > (although GCC itself won't do that). Using "unsigned int" and taking
> > care to only examine t
> Hi,
>
> The patch that Andrew Stubbs sent upstream here:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-04/msg02130.html
>
> seems to have become stalled after Ramana's question here:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-05/msg00291.html
>
> This was discussed with ARM personnel (i.e. Lee
Hi,
The patch that Andrew Stubbs sent upstream here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-04/msg02130.html
seems to have become stalled after Ramana's question here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-05/msg00291.html
This was discussed with ARM personnel (i.e. Lee Smith) at the time the
