Re: fixes for type-punning warnings in GCC 4.1

Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-02-13T20:19:55Z

On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 04:57:28PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Yep. It didn't look like those two occurrences were such a big deal.
> I don't see why we should refuse to handle long double at all just
> because we can't scan them in as such. But it's not my call, I guess.

My only point here was that, if we know that DOUBLEST is a double,
then casting it to a long double and passing it to a home-brewed
long double reimplementation of ldexp is pretty silly; the other
HAVE_LONG_DOUBLE conditionals were all really
"DOUBLEST_IS_LONG_DOUBLE".

On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 09:13:21PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>
> > Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 16:57:28 -0200
> >
> > Ok to install?
>
> Looks ok to me.

Me too. Thanks!

--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery