From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27628 invoked by alias); 9 May 2019 21:36:32 -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 27617 invoked by uid 89); 9 May 2019 21:36:32 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=H*F:D*br X-HELO: smtpout1.mo803.mail-out.ovh.net Date: Thu, 09 May 2019 21:36:00 -0000 From: "Gabriel F. T. Gomes" To: Adhemerval Zanella CC: Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/28] powerpc: trunc/truncf refactor Message-ID: <20190509213622.4tgyp7h4ucq5w6uk@tereshkova> References: <20190329133529.22523-1-adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> <20190329133529.22523-8-adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> <20190509200618.mq2mtgtdmdryumu4@tereshkova> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716 X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 11338656489081654985 X-VR-SPAMSTATE: OK X-VR-SPAMSCORE: -100 X-VR-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduuddrkeeigddutdefucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuqfggjfdpvefjgfevmfevgfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecuhedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddm X-SW-Source: 2019-05/txt/msg00227.txt.bz2 On Thu, May 09 2019, Adhemerval Zanella wrote: > > On 09/05/2019 17:06, Gabriel F. T. Gomes wrote: > > > > This comment got lost. Would you deem it appropriate to reinstate it > > somewhere in round_to_integer_double (you would need to make it generic > > so that it fits the four rounding directions (so far), as well as > > nearbyint from the subsequent patch... perhaps something along the lines > > of the paragraph below)? > > > > IEEE 1003.1 nearest integer functions. IEEE specifies several > > functions that approximate a floating-point to a nearby integer value. > > For each of them we set the appropriate rounding mode, then add and > > subtract +-2**52. > > > > My view is such direct comments is useful on assembly implementation > where is not really obvious what the instruction sequence is doing. > I usually see that the C counterpart should be straightforward to infer > this. I can reinstate the comment though if you think it is really > valuable. I guess you are right. The patch is good without the comment. Thanks.