From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3273 invoked by alias); 7 Aug 2004 18:22:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 3265 invoked from network); 7 Aug 2004 18:22:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 7 Aug 2004 18:22:59 -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 i77IMwe3031608 for ; Sat, 7 Aug 2004 14:22:59 -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 i77IMva21314; Sat, 7 Aug 2004 14:22:57 -0400 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 019CB2B9D; Sat, 7 Aug 2004 14:22:49 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <41151DF9.5000706@gnu.org> Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2004 18:22:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040801 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/mips] Fix crash trying to print long double float References: <20040806181603.GQ1203@gnat.com> <20040806203243.GV1192@gnat.com> <411518CB.5060104@gnu.org> <20040807180927.GA1192@gnat.com> In-Reply-To: <20040807180927.GA1192@gnat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00210.txt.bz2 >>>2004-08-06 Joel Brobecker >>>> > >>>> > * mips-tdep.c (mips_gdbarch_init): Set size of long double >>>> > to 128 bits for N32 and N64 ABIs. >>>> > >>>> >Tested on mips-irix. OK to apply? >> >>> >>> Can you also clone / tweak the relevant floatformat (I'm wondering if it >>> should just go in doublest.[hc] and we should stop using floatformat.[ch]). > > > Yes. I am planning on doing this tonight. But could this done separately > from this patch, or do you think it doesn't make sense? Same patch. > My other question is: Do we need to take care of the big endian > convention only, or do we need to look at the LE case as well (I don't > have a clue as to what is happening in that case :-(, if this ever makes > any sense). Just take care of the BE case (set nothing for the LE case). Now that we've stopped the fatal crash this isn't an issue. Andrew