From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id bUq9DCMXMmGiCwAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 03 Sep 2021 08:37:55 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 226221EE22; Fri, 3 Sep 2021 08:37:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,RDNS_DYNAMIC, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 65EC21EDDB for ; Fri, 3 Sep 2021 08:37:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC3C2384B806 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 2021 12:37:53 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org BC3C2384B806 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1630672673; bh=fqd0s/JqFMHeCbJ/c+neSw5XTu4vB6rJWxmN7JBydmI=; h=Subject:To:References:Date:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To: From; b=TxVDN/oYYH054O8HPYu/I40c9uP8eK8eT42/WuaiUzcqz8T1rN2fNglu4ThZ6CrZU sSxBG5FoMnRVb1jBE99RKlqy3ml1LtytuseLcXAfFThrthvHg8SX+UKQ3sntU5tW1a /inEZdpaBmSiRqvwE03/J8AHv3bTbep03UqsUKqA= Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDFF1384B13A for ; Fri, 3 Sep 2021 12:37:31 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org BDFF1384B13A Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 183CbNqS002366 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 3 Sep 2021 08:37:28 -0400 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 183CbNqS002366 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (192-222-157-6.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.157.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 86D321EDDB; Fri, 3 Sep 2021 08:37:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] gdb: Enable finish command and inferior calls for _Float16 on amd64 and i386. To: Luis Machado , "Willgerodt, Felix" , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" References: <20210729083833.2483704-1-felix.willgerodt@intel.com> <20210729083833.2483704-3-felix.willgerodt@intel.com> <64bffa82-0520-d0aa-786b-4d81142b977f@linaro.org> <8c1dbaf9-5d1c-a1b6-6e2d-c16f456ecb6f@linaro.org> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2021 08:37:23 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8c1dbaf9-5d1c-a1b6-6e2d-c16f456ecb6f@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Fri, 3 Sep 2021 12:37:23 +0000 X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Simon Marchi Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On 2021-07-30 8:04 a.m., Luis Machado via Gdb-patches wrote: > On 7/30/21 4:52 AM, Willgerodt, Felix wrote: >>> Is _Float16 equivalent to fp16? If so, the presence of yet another name for a >>> fp16 type is a bit unfortunate. >>> >> >> They are the same usually, but on ARM the story is apparently a bit more complex: >> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Half-Precision.html > > It is. :-) > >> >> But to cite the link: >> " The __fp16 type may only be used as an argument to intrinsics defined in >> , or as a storage format." >> >> And: >> "It is recommended that portable code use the _Float16 type defined by >> ISO/IEC TS 18661-3:2015." >> >> Therefore I don't think it is that unfortunate and not really negotiable by now. >> Both GCC and clang know about both already. > > The unfortunate bit is the lack of enough DWARF information to make the distinction between different float formats of the same size. If the compilers are OK with the naming and already support it, it's not a big deal then. I didn't find anything else to change in addition to what Luis already reported, so the patch is OK what that fixed. Simon