From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19356 invoked by alias); 6 May 2007 22:17:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 19344 invoked by uid 22791); 6 May 2007 22:17:12 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from return.false.org (HELO return.false.org) (66.207.162.98) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 06 May 2007 22:17:10 +0000 Received: from return.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 579164B267; Sun, 6 May 2007 17:17:08 -0500 (CDT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (dsl093-172-095.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.172.95]) by return.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 286194B262; Sun, 6 May 2007 17:17:08 -0500 (CDT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Hkp2R-0007f8-9i; Sun, 06 May 2007 18:17:07 -0400 Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 22:17:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: Luis Machado , gdb-patches ml Subject: Re: [RFC] Detecting and printing 128-bit long double values for PPC Message-ID: <20070506221707.GA29437@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ulrich Weigand , Luis Machado , gdb-patches ml References: <20070430135259.GA7430@caradoc.them.org> <200705062136.l46La00Q029476@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200705062136.l46La00Q029476@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-05/txt/msg00070.txt.bz2 On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 11:36:00PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Under the circumstances, I'd argue we should just change the built-in > type to 128-bit, and make sure that binaries with a DWARF-2 reported > "long double" fundamental type of 64-bit still use the proper floating > point format info for that type. > > Anything I'm missing here? Sounds reasonable to me. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery