From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14706 invoked by alias); 5 Dec 2004 01:51:49 -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 14615 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2004 01:51:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 5 Dec 2004 01:51:41 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1CalYm-0006mH-UM; Sat, 04 Dec 2004 20:51:37 -0500 Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2004 15:54:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Richard Earnshaw Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA fix conversion of little-byte big-word floats to doublest Message-ID: <20041205015136.GA25952@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Richard Earnshaw , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20041204173257.GA13282@nevyn.them.org> <200412041656.iB4Gui7G015398@merlin.buzzard.freeserve.co.uk> <20041204160054.GA3130@nevyn.them.org> <20041204154429.GA2764@nevyn.them.org> <200412041438.iB4Ec0cq017568@merlin.buzzard.freeserve.co.uk> <200412041546.iB4FkOnI002858@merlin.buzzard.freeserve.co.uk> <200412041725.iB4HPLUo003928@merlin.buzzard.freeserve.co.uk> <200412042358.iB4Nws2W015496@merlin.buzzard.freeserve.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200412042358.iB4Nws2W015496@merlin.buzzard.freeserve.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-12/txt/msg00127.txt.bz2 On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 11:58:54PM +0000, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 12:32:57 EST, Daniel Jacobowitz > wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 05:25:21PM +0000, Richard Earnshaw wrote: > > > I've just been thinking. > > > > > > The current code (for both conversions to and from doublest) tries to work > > > by normalizing the word order to match the byte order. This clearly makes > > > things quite difficult when the number of words involved is variable. > > > > > > I think it would be a more tractable problem to change all this around so > > > that the byte order is normalized to match the word order. This can be > > > done by simply repeating a word-normalization step for each word in the > > > value. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > That sounds good to me - much simpler. > > I withdraw my previous patch and substitute this one. This should also > fix handling of mixed endian formats that are larger than 64 bits. > > Unlike the previous patch this one also correctly handles NaNs; though it > appears that nothing in the testsuite currently tests this. Yes, the revised patch is OK. Thanks. -- Daniel Jacobowitz