Hi Duncan, On Mon, 1 Nov 2010, Duncan Sands wrote:> > Does llvm-gcc not intend to support -m96bit-long-double? > > Please open a bug report asking for support for -m96bit-long-double, > to ensure this issue is not forgotten.Given the thread that followed this post, I'm not sure whether you still want a bug report. Is the plan to fix -m96bit-long-double or just remove it and expect users to bitcast a [12 x i8] instead? Thanks.
Hi Joel,>>> Does llvm-gcc not intend to support -m96bit-long-double? >> >> Please open a bug report asking for support for -m96bit-long-double, >> to ensure this issue is not forgotten. > > Given the thread that followed this post, I'm not sure whether you still > want a bug report. Is the plan to fix -m96bit-long-double or just remove > it and expect users to bitcast a [12 x i8] instead?I don't think anyone really has a plan :) However it seems wrong that the compiler should either crash (if built with checking enabled) or produce wrong code (if built with checking disabled) when passed -m96bit-long-double, so please open a bug report anyway. Probably the implementation would be to generate [12 x i8] for long double memory when passed the flag. Ciao, Duncan.
Hi Duncan, On Wed, 3 Nov 2010, Duncan Sands wrote:> I don't think anyone really has a plan :) However it seems wrong that the > compiler should either crash (if built with checking enabled) or produce > wrong code (if built with checking disabled) when passed -m96bit-long-double, > so please open a bug report anyway. Probably the implementation would be to > generate [12 x i8] for long double memory when passed the flag.Ok, I opened bug 8540. Thanks.