From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30331 invoked by alias); 4 Aug 2004 07:19:43 -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 30323 invoked from network); 4 Aug 2004 07:19:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO server7.nfra.nl) (192.87.1.57) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 4 Aug 2004 07:19:41 -0000 Received: from juw15.nfra.nl [10.87.8.15] by server7.nfra.nl; Wed, 04 Aug 2004 09:19:36 +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 i747IdCu014711; Wed, 4 Aug 2004 09:18:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by juw15.nfra.nl (8.12.2+Sun/8.12.2/Submit) id i747IBrr014707; Wed, 4 Aug 2004 09:18:11 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 07:19:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200408040718.i747IBrr014707@juw15.nfra.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: pkoning@equallogic.com CC: brobecker@gnat.com, cagney@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <16655.37815.285599.668840@gargle.gargle.HOWL> (message from Paul Koning on Tue, 3 Aug 2004 09:31:35 -0400) 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> <200408030726.i737Q9uw013721@juw15.nfra.nl> <16655.37815.285599.668840@gargle.gargle.HOWL> X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00082.txt.bz2 Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 09:31:35 -0400 From: Paul Koning >>>>> "Mark" == Mark Kettenis writes: >> 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. Mark> Folks, Please realize that in practice, printing an Mark> approximation is the best we can do anyway. I'm not sure the present case warrants the effort, but I don't think that's true. You could lift the gcc code in real.c, which has conversions between target format and an oversized internal format. With that you would be able to process 128 bit floats correctly on any host. Ah, yes, of course. What I meant to say is that with the current state of affairs in GDB, that is, without some sort of floating-point emulator, printing an approximation is the best we can do. Mark