From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 41261 invoked by alias); 6 Nov 2015 19:29:19 -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 41246 invoked by uid 89); 6 Nov 2015 19:29:18 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 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 (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 06 Nov 2015 19:29:17 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AB718F302; Fri, 6 Nov 2015 19:29:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn1-4-157.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.4.157]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id tA6JTFbq017456; Fri, 6 Nov 2015 14:29:15 -0500 Subject: Re: [Patch] Change to argument promotion in fixed conversion library calls To: sellcey@imgtec.com References: <15881f44-1bed-4fda-a47c-45234f9c091e@BAMAIL02.ba.imgtec.org> <563CFC33.8050004@redhat.com> <1446838073.3867.19.camel@ubuntu-sellcey> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org From: Bernd Schmidt Message-ID: <563CFF8A.9050900@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2015 19:29:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1446838073.3867.19.camel@ubuntu-sellcey> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-11/txt/msg00711.txt.bz2 On 11/06/2015 08:27 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote: > > Are you thinking of a simple function that is called on all targets or a > target specific function? Maybe a target specific function would be > safer. No, I think just what you have there is probably sufficient. Bernd