Re: [patch, libiberty, gdb] IEEE 754 half floating-point format

["Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand@de.ibm.com>]

Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > include/ChangeLog:
> > 
> > 2010-07-02  Ken Werner  <ken.werner@de.ibm.com>
> > 
> > 	* gfloatformat.h (floatformat_ieee_half_big): Add declaration.
>           ^^^ typo
> > 	(floatformat_ieee_half_little): Likewise.
> > 
> > libiberty/ChangeLog:
> > 
> > 2010-07-02  Ken Werner  <ken.werner@de.ibm.com>
> > 
> > 	* floatformat.c (floatformat_ieee_half_big): New variable.
> > 	(floatformat_ieee_half_little): Likewise.
> 
> This part should be submitted to GCC, I think?
> 
> > 2010-07-02  Ken Werner  <ken.werner@de.ibm.com>
> > 
> > 	* gdbtypes.h (floatformats_ieee_half): Add declaration.
> > 	* gdbtypes.c (floatformats_ieee_half): New variable.
> > 	* doublest.c (floatformat_from_length): Set format to
> > 	gdbarch_half_format if length matches.
> > 	* gdbarch.sh (half_bit): New architecture method.
> > 	(half_format): Likewise.
> > 	* gdbarch.h: Regenerate.
> > 	* gdbarch.c: Likewise.
> 
> My only comment regarding this part of the patch is that "half_bit"
> and "half_format" isn't very intuitive. Perhaps that's more obvious
> to someone who programs in OpenCL if "half" is a type name? For
> the other arch routines, the routine name makes it clear that it's
> about floating point types, because it contains a name that is
> clearly associated to floats (float, double, long double).  What
> about using "half_float_bit" and "half_float_format"?
> 
> What do others think?

Note that I had already approved this patch back in July, after
the libiberty part was approved by DJ Delorie, so everything is
already committed ...

Of course, we could still change the name of the gdbarch callbacks
if you think this would be more intuitive.

Bye,
Ulrich

-- 
  Dr. Ulrich Weigand
  GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell BE
  Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com