From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-alpha-return-106611-listarch-libc-alpha=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 23227 invoked by alias); 4 Nov 2019 18:10:54 -0000
Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:libc-alpha-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 23214 invoked by uid 89); 4 Nov 2019 18:10:54 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=H*RU:sk:smtpout, HX-Spam-Relays-External:sk:smtpout, correspondence, H*F:D*br
X-HELO: smtpout1.mo528.mail-out.ovh.net
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 18:10:00 -0000
From: "Gabriel F. T. Gomes" <gabriel@inconstante.net.br>
To: Paul E Murphy <murphyp@linux.ibm.com>
CC: <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/30] ldbl-128ibm-compat: Add wide character
 printing functions
Message-ID: <20191104151041.69c50b4c@tereshkova>
In-Reply-To: <6cd56f3e-847f-f1bc-7ae4-f30d58bfdd0a@linux.ibm.com>
References: <20191025153410.15405-1-gabriel@inconstante.net.br>
	<20191025153410.15405-3-gabriel@inconstante.net.br>
	<6cd56f3e-847f-f1bc-7ae4-f30d58bfdd0a@linux.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 7613898120981892664
X-VR-SPAMSTATE: OK
X-VR-SPAMSCORE: -100
X-VR-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedruddufedgudduudcutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfqggfjpdevjffgvefmvefgnecuuegrihhlohhuthemucehtddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd
X-SW-Source: 2019-11/txt/msg00082.txt.bz2

Hi, Paul,

On Mon, 04 Nov 2019, Paul E Murphy wrote:
>
>Is it prohibitively difficult to merge the wide character tester with 
>the one in the previous patch? Otherwise, this looks OK too.

It's not difficult...  In fact, that's how I started it, but it ended up
being too hard to read (imo, anyway), because of the excessive use of
macros and because of the not so nice correspondence between function
names.

I suppose you're suggesting it so that we have less code duplication.
I can make the merge...  It's just not how I would do it.