From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6064 invoked by alias); 17 Jun 2015 19:39:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 6049 invoked by uid 89); 17 Jun 2015 19:39:33 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mailapp01.imgtec.com Received: from mailapp01.imgtec.com (HELO mailapp01.imgtec.com) (195.59.15.196) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 19:39:28 +0000 Received: from KLMAIL01.kl.imgtec.org (unknown [192.168.5.35]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id D037F1D75A671; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 20:39:21 +0100 (IST) Received: from hhmail02.hh.imgtec.org (10.100.10.20) by KLMAIL01.kl.imgtec.org (192.168.5.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.195.1; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 20:39:25 +0100 Received: from BAMAIL02.ba.imgtec.org (10.20.40.28) by hhmail02.hh.imgtec.org (10.100.10.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 20:39:25 +0100 Received: from [10.20.3.58] (10.20.3.58) by bamail02.ba.imgtec.org (10.20.40.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.174.1; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 12:39:23 -0700 Message-ID: <1434569963.18552.9.camel@ubuntu-sellcey> Subject: Re: [Patch, MIPS] Enable fp-contract on MIPS and update -mfused-madd From: Steve Ellcey Reply-To: To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" CC: Richard Sandiford , Joseph Myers , , Catherine Moore , Matthew Fortune Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 19:51:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: References: <4c25620c-546c-40ae-b330-3652fe25f791@BAMAIL02.ba.imgtec.org> <87mvzy4nwu.fsf@e105548-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <1434562571.18552.6.camel@ubuntu-sellcey> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2015-06/txt/msg01223.txt.bz2 On Wed, 2015-06-17 at 19:17 +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On Wed, 17 Jun 2015, Steve Ellcey wrote: > > FAOD I meant to remove the checks globally throughout MIPS target code > only. > > > Is there any reason why my patch (minus the HONOR_NAN checks) would have > > to wait for the other changes? > > Because it combines two functionally independent changes: > > 1. HONOR_NAN check removal. > > 2. FMA support addition. > > Worse yet, syntactically overlapping, so that e.g. it's impossible to > bisect the cause of any possible regression caused without reconstructing > the two changes from the patch committed if it went in as a single change. > > Maciej OK, that makes more sense. I misunderstood what you were originally saying. Steve Ellcey sellcey@imgtec.com