From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 92264 invoked by alias); 9 Oct 2017 16:59:29 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 92247 invoked by uid 89); 9 Oct 2017 16:59:28 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (HELO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com) (148.163.156.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Oct 2017 16:59:27 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098399.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id v99GxPm1032231 for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2017 12:59:26 -0400 Received: from e06smtp10.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp10.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.106]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2dgbtbvcxx-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 09 Oct 2017 12:59:25 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp10.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 9 Oct 2017 17:59:21 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.194) by e06smtp10.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.140) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Mon, 9 Oct 2017 17:59:18 +0100 Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.62]) by b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id v99GxHIb16187428; Mon, 9 Oct 2017 16:59:17 GMT Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88AD1AE053; Mon, 9 Oct 2017 17:53:39 +0100 (BST) Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78E61AE04D; Mon, 9 Oct 2017 17:53:39 +0100 (BST) Received: from oc3748833570.ibm.com (unknown [9.152.213.178]) by d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 9 Oct 2017 17:53:39 +0100 (BST) Received: by oc3748833570.ibm.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A18F3D83320; Mon, 9 Oct 2017 18:59:17 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [RFC][08/19] Target FP: Use target format throughout expression parsing To: brobecker@adacore.com (Joel Brobecker) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2017 16:59:00 -0000 From: "Ulrich Weigand" Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <20171009160656.vpsnyisfst5pq4f7@adacore.com> from "Joel Brobecker" at Oct 09, 2017 12:06:56 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 17100916-0040-0000-0000-000003E100FB X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 17100916-0041-0000-0000-000025E300F0 Message-Id: <20171009165917.A18F3D83320@oc3748833570.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2017-10-09_04:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1707230000 definitions=main-1710090249 X-SW-Source: 2017-10/txt/msg00224.txt.bz2 Joel Brobecker wrote: > > - Ada: This used to check sizeof (DOUBLEST) to determine which > > type to use for floating-point literal. This seems questionable > > to being with (since DOUBLEST is quite unrelated to target formats), > > and in any case we need to get rid of DOUBLEST. I'm now simply > > always using the largest type (builtin_long_double) -- if there's > > a better way (not sure what the Ada standard defines here), this > > can be updated. > > I did a bit of archeology, and it looks like this was BMT (Before My > Time). But looking at the code, I *think* this may have been related > to the fact that we decode the value and store it in host-side format, > and it looks like the code is trying to find the best target-side type > match so as to avoid having to deal with too much precision if the host > isn't capable of it in the first place??? As you say, this might be > questionable, just trying to think the reasons behind it. > > In any case, I looked at your changes, and they seem fine to me. > In fact, I welcome the simplification ;-). Excellent, thanks for the verification! Bye, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand GNU/Linux compilers and toolchain Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com