From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-473356-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 21033 invoked by alias); 15 Jan 2015 14:34:40 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 20983 invoked by uid 48); 15 Jan 2015 14:34:34 -0000
From: "rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/64416] RFE: Support REAL128 on arm
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 14:34:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran
X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: EH
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: keywords cf_gcctarget bug_status resolution
Message-ID: <bug-64416-4-DOpKPiA2i8@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-64416-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-64416-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-01/txt/msg01350.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64416

Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |EH
             Target|                            |arm
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |WONTFIX

--- Comment #2 from Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I suspect it's unlikely the EABI will be expanded in this direction; at least
until (unless) these types get implemented in hardware.

Furthermore, there's a high chance that if HW did implement 128-bit types, it
would be done in a way that was incompatible with any design choices we made
now, rendering a necessary ABI break or significant performance penalty.

My inclination is to close this as 'WONTFIX', with the understanding that if a
new ABI with such an extension does appear, support for it would be an
automatic step to implementing that ABI revision.