From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 81153 invoked by alias); 9 Dec 2016 21:23:16 -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 81126 invoked by uid 89); 9 Dec 2016 21:23:15 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_SEMBACKSCATTER autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=magno, Tulio, tulio, Magno X-HELO: mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com From: "Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho" To: Joseph Myers Cc: "Gabriel F. T. Gomes" , libc-alpha@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] float128: Add _Float128 make bits to libm. In-Reply-To: <1478716859-3246-3-git-send-email-gftg@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1478716859-3246-1-git-send-email-gftg@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1478716859-3246-3-git-send-email-gftg@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.20.2 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.51.1 (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2016 21:23:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 16120921-0020-0000-0000-0000026F5D13 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 16120921-0021-0000-0000-00003085E0CF Message-Id: <87oa0ker0u.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2016-12-09_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=8.0.1-1609300000 definitions=main-1612090285 X-SW-Source: 2016-12/txt/msg00332.txt.bz2 "Gabriel F. T. Gomes" writes: > From: "Paul E. Murphy" > > This adds the appropriate common bits for a platform to > enable float128 and expose ABI. Joseph, I'd like to clarify one thing: In a previous thread you mentioned that you'd review one patch of a patchset after fixing/committing the previous patch. In this patchset, you replied directly to patch #3, without making comments to patch #1 and #2. Does that mean they look good for you? -- Tulio Magno