On 05/23/2011 11:11 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Looks ok in principle, but I wonder if we should really create a new
header for that. softfloat-specialize.h is already supposed to contain
the target specific functions, so it's probably a good idea to move them
there instead.
I was wondering about
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 03:47:00PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Most definitions in softfloat.h are really target-independent. Split
> the few that stand out as target-dependent, to allow including
> softfloat.h from files that are not compiled per-target.
Looks ok in principle, but I wonder if
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 05/20/2011 09:38 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Paolo Bonzini
>> wrote:
>> > Most definitions in softfloat.h are really target-independent. Split
>> > the few that stand out as target-dependent, to allow
On 05/20/2011 09:38 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Most definitions in softfloat.h are really target-independent. Split
> the few that stand out as target-dependent, to allow including
> softfloat.h from files that are not compiled per-target.
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Most definitions in softfloat.h are really target-independent. Split
> the few that stand out as target-dependent, to allow including
> softfloat.h from files that are not compiled per-target.
Maybe the next step should be (or in place of t
Most definitions in softfloat.h are really target-independent. Split
the few that stand out as target-dependent, to allow including
softfloat.h from files that are not compiled per-target.
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini
---
fpu/softfloat-target.h | 119 +++
