This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH v1 02/36] Guile extension language: doc additions
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: ludo at gnu dot org (Ludovic CourtÃs)
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2014 16:41:25 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 02/36] Guile extension language: doc additions
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <52b9da59 dot 64ab440a dot 0b0b dot 7e1c at mx dot google dot com> <83ha9w68av dot fsf at gnu dot org> <87sit4kb1t dot fsf at gnu dot org> <83eh4ow78t dot fsf at gnu dot org> <87k3egez8e dot fsf at gnu dot org>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic CourtÃs)
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> Date: Sat, 04 Jan 2014 12:57:21 +0100
>
> > What about long double support?
>
> Guile doesnât support it out of the box.
>
> If needed, it could easily be implemented as an extension: one would use
> a SMOB to wrap long doubles and pass them to Scheme, and possibly define
> methods for â+â, â-â, etc. for objects of this type.
>
> Of course, this wouldnât be terribly efficient, but thatâs not so
> important here I think; what matters is that it would allow âlong
> doubleâ values to be passed around without loss of accuracy.
>
> That said, my feeling is that leaving things as is (with long doubles
> cast to doubles) may prove to be sufficient for most practical uses of
> GDB.
>
> WDYT?
Well, GDB supports long double if the target does, so I thought it
would be a pity to lose that when working with Guile. But maybe I
misunderstand something, and this isn't a real problem.