From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19466 invoked by alias); 19 Aug 2016 17:21:16 -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 19446 invoked by uid 89); 19 Aug 2016 17:21:16 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=opportunity X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 17:21:06 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6AF8635C2; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 17:21:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vpn-227-248.phx2.redhat.com (vpn-227-248.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.227.248]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u7JHL2KB024255; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 13:21:02 -0400 Message-ID: <1471627261.2315.3.camel@redhat.com> Subject: Re: Implement C _FloatN, _FloatNx types [version 6] From: David Malcolm To: Joseph Myers Cc: Richard Biener , James Greenhalgh , GCC Patches , "fortran@gcc.gnu.org" , Jason Merrill , Richard Earnshaw , Nick Clifton , Ramana Radhakrishnan , Marcus Shawcroft , David Edelsohn , Segher Boessenkool , Michael Meissner , murphyp@linux.vnet.ibm.com, nd@arm.com, Per Bothner Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 17:21:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: References: <20160817154244.GA39270@arm.com> <1471621961.24300.24.camel@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-08/txt/msg01438.txt.bz2 On Fri, 2016-08-19 at 16:51 +0000, Joseph Myers wrote: > On Fri, 19 Aug 2016, David Malcolm wrote: > > > Please could you take this opportunity to add some examples to the > > header comment for that function, both for the common cases e.g. > > "f", > > and for the new suffixes; nothing in the patch body appears to > > document > > them. (ideally, referencing the standard). > > > > Also, it would be good to add some more comments to the function > > body. > > For example, in this hunk: > > > > - if (f + d + l + w + q > 1 || i > 1) > > + if (f + d + l + w + q + fn + fnx > 1 || i > 1) > > > > should it read something like : > > /* Reject duplicate suffixes, contradictory suffixes [...] */ > > > > where "[...]" is something relating to fn + fnx, which I can't > > figure > > out in the absence of the standard you're referring to. > > How does this seem? I think > was the > last > public draft of TS 18661-3 before publication. Thanks - the comments make things much clearer. [...snip...]