From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 97157 invoked by alias); 2 Jun 2017 23:27:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 96908 invoked by uid 89); 2 Jun 2017 23:27:11 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,URIBL_RED autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:764 X-HELO: mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 23:27:00 -0000 From: "Gabriel F. T. Gomes" To: Joseph Myers Cc: Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] float128: Add strfromf128 In-Reply-To: References: <1495803396-14558-1-git-send-email-gftg@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1495803396-14558-4-git-send-email-gftg@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170529233143.5b34c8b4@keller.br.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-MML: disable x-cbid: 17060223-1523-0000-0000-000002A74E1A X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 17060223-1524-0000-0000-00002A3E4EAC Message-Id: <20170602202607.561d8d86@keller.br.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2017-06-02_10:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1703280000 definitions=main-1706020419 X-SW-Source: 2017-06/txt/msg00130.txt.bz2 On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 16:31:02 +0000 Joseph Myers wrote: > On Mon, 29 May 2017, Gabriel F. T. Gomes wrote: > > > I attached a patch with this refactoring for double and long double. I'll > > update this block for float128 in the next version of this patch. > > > > Is the attached patch (with the refactoring) OK for master? > > This refactoring patch is OK. Thanks. I just noticed that I missed the same change for printf_size (which had the same duplication problem), so I'll send a new version of this patch along with the new version of this series. Could you please review it again (I only changed printf_size)? Thank you. > Given the memset, it seems reasonable not to zero it again. OK.