From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12466 invoked by alias); 5 Dec 2007 18:42:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 12456 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Dec 2007 18:42:20 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.45.13) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:42:16 +0000 Received: from zps19.corp.google.com (zps19.corp.google.com [172.25.146.19]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id lB5IgC47016036 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 10:42:12 -0800 Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com (rvfc27.prod.google.com [10.140.180.27]) by zps19.corp.google.com with ESMTP id lB5Ifk1S031459 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 10:42:12 -0800 Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id c27so3745874rvf for ; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 10:42:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.141.167.5 with SMTP id u5mr1404105rvo.1196880131661; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 10:42:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.65.148.3 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Dec 2007 10:42:11 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <498552560712051042u7291ea95rb85e69aea17f0ac@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:42:00 -0000 From: "=?BIG5?B?RG91ZyBLd2FuICjD9q62vHcp?=" To: "Mark Mitchell" Subject: Re: [LTO][PATCH] Fix long double precision problem Cc: "Kenneth Zadeck" , "Andrew Pinski" , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, "Diego Novillo" , "Nathan Froyd" In-Reply-To: <4756D2FB.6020703@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <498552560712042305h6aa6f4d8jfdc8e9031b522604@mail.gmail.com> <47569FA0.5040308@naturalbridge.com> <4756D2FB.6020703@codesourcery.com> 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 X-SW-Source: 2007-12/txt/msg00208.txt.bz2 2007/12/5, Mark Mitchell : > However, first we should check if DW_AT_bit_size is being emitted correctly. On i386, 80-bit extended floating point format is stored in 12 bytes (96 bits). It is a problem even if DW_AT_bit_size is being emitted correctly. -Doug