From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1036 invoked by alias); 3 Aug 2004 07:27:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 1018 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2004 07:27:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO server7.nfra.nl) (192.87.1.57) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 3 Aug 2004 07:27:08 -0000 Received: from juw15.nfra.nl [10.87.8.15] by server7.nfra.nl; Tue, 03 Aug 2004 09:27:04 +0200 Received: from juw15.nfra.nl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by juw15.nfra.nl (8.12.2+Sun/8.11.1) with ESMTP id i737Q9Cu013724; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 09:26:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by juw15.nfra.nl (8.12.2+Sun/8.12.2/Submit) id i737Q9uw013721; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 09:26:09 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 07:27:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200408030726.i737Q9uw013721@juw15.nfra.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: brobecker@gnat.com CC: cagney@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20040803043906.GZ32638@gnat.com> (message from Joel Brobecker on Mon, 2 Aug 2004 21:39:06 -0700) Subject: Re: [RFA/mips] 128-bit long doubles for N32/N64 References: <20040722154456.GG1289@gnat.com> <41058380.6050407@gnu.org> <20040726224546.GB20596@gnat.com> <410676AE.4010001@gnu.org> <20040802011520.GA32638@gnat.com> <410E886E.1060702@gnu.org> <20040803011338.GY32638@gnat.com> <410EF168.3040304@gnu.org> <20040803043906.GZ32638@gnat.com> X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00064.txt.bz2 Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 21:39:06 -0700 From: Joel Brobecker > >Then let's let the fortran developpers fix it :-). > > Or the Ada developers :-) Honestly, I think we're letting the best be the enemy of good. We have the choice between printing an approximation of a float, or printing nothing at all. Some users will be satisfied with the approximation. I will be. Why penalize these users? I agree. I am ok with documenting this approximation in the GDB manual. If whoever wants to fix this later, then fine. But in the meantime, I think something is better than nothing. Folks, Please realize that in practice, printing an approximation is the best we can do anyway. Unless we've got a native GDB and we've properly set the host's floatformat in configure.host. And in that case the actual description shouldn't really matter; just that it matches the description of the target floatformat. So ... > >I vote for setting the format to ieee-double with a comment. > > That would also be wrong. > > Closer would be a new 128bit irix floatformat that knew how to unpack > the first 64-bits. Indeed, maybe it would be cleaner to create a new irix-specific 128bit floatformat that only uses the bits in the high part (basically, it would be a copy of the ieee_big with the size set to 128bits, or something like that, right?). .. this seems a perfectly acceptable solution to me. It'd avoid us to really lie about the floating-point format, even though we're not telling the complete truth. Mark