From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-34616-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 22729 invoked by alias); 27 Jul 2004 15:37:23 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 22718 invoked from network); 27 Jul 2004 15:37:22 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 27 Jul 2004 15:37:22 -0000
Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i6RFbMe3028594
	for <gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>; Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:37:22 -0400
Received: from localhost.redhat.com (porkchop.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.2])
	by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i6RFbLa12676;
	Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:37:22 -0400
Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id CA9D82B9D; Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:37:18 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <410676AE.4010001@gnu.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 15:37:00 -0000
From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040217
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@gnat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA/mips] 128-bit long doubles for N32/N64
References: <20040722154456.GG1289@gnat.com> <41058380.6050407@gnu.org> <20040726224546.GB20596@gnat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20040726224546.GB20596@gnat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2004-07/txt/msg00400.txt.bz2

>>Does long_double's floatformat need to be set?
> 
> 
> Apparently not. Or I should say that I don't see any evidence that
> it should.

Check the floating-point tests in structs.exp and call-sc.exp.  There's 
hopefully also some sort of floating-point.exp test that confirms the 
basics.

Looking at the code, it appears to default to:

const struct floatformat *
default_double_format (struct gdbarch *gdbarch)
{
   int byte_order = gdbarch_byte_order (gdbarch);
   switch (byte_order)
     {
     case BFD_ENDIAN_BIG:
       return &floatformat_ieee_double_big;
     case BFD_ENDIAN_LITTLE:
       return &floatformat_ieee_double_little;
     default:
       internal_error (__FILE__, __LINE__,
                       "default_double_format: bad byte order");
     }
}

outch!

Andrew