From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29942 invoked by alias); 25 Mar 2013 18:39:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-ports-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-ports-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 29531 invoked by uid 89); 25 Mar 2013 18:39:49 -0000 Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net (HELO shards.monkeyblade.net) (149.20.54.216) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:39:49 +0000 Received: from localhost (nat-pool-rdu.redhat.com [66.187.233.202]) (Authenticated sender: davem-davemloft) by shards.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B7A4C583EDF; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 11:39:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:39:00 -0000 Message-Id: <20130325.143945.953041692558823661.davem@davemloft.net> To: thomas@codesourcery.com Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org, libc-ports@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [attention machine maintainers] [PATCH] issignaling From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <87mwts2cpc.fsf@schwinge.name> References: <87r4j73cqo.fsf@schwinge.name> <20130324.173033.2124715003552827287.davem@davemloft.net> <87mwts2cpc.fsf@schwinge.name> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-03/txt/msg00160.txt.bz2 From: Thomas Schwinge Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 07:52:31 +0100 > On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 17:30:33 -0400, David Miller wrote: >> From: Thomas Schwinge >> Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:17:19 +0100 >> >> > I have now pushed a new version of this patch in the >> > tschwinge/issignaling branch. Would machine maintainers please test >> > this branch/patch and report back? >> >> It doesn't even build on sparc because the code block that is >> CPP enabled in the ldbl-128 version of issignaling() has >> an #error in it. > > Yes, because that code has not yet been tested, as the #error says -- > sorry for not telling that in advance. Do you want me to publish a new > branch and/or patch with that line removed? With the #error line removed, sparc builds cleanly and there are no testsuite regressions. I tested with 32-bit sparc V9, which is generally very harmonious with 64-bit sparc. But I'll kick off a 64-bit build as well and let you know if anything turns up.