This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] Add generic HAVE_RM_CTX implementation
- From: Will Newton <will dot newton at linaro dot org>
- To: Wilco <wdijkstr at arm dot com>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Marcus Shawcroft <marcus dot shawcroft at gmail dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 15:58:12 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add generic HAVE_RM_CTX implementation
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <000101cf7419$96b36f60$c41a4e20$ at com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1405221450370 dot 11868 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <A610E03AD50BFC4D95529A36D37FA55E32BD715E14 at GEORGE dot Emea dot Arm dot com> <CAFqB+PxroEL1POSOY3ZOCjK_KULHP2VvoeLK6KpAiynG3OBkKg at mail dot gmail dot com> <002d01cf84c8$bfcdb990$3f692cb0$ at com> <CANu=Dmjge80vvn-CcDrHoBo0-PbydoniPSrxTenxzLecmGJVZg at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 17 June 2014 14:14, Will Newton <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 10 June 2014 17:26, Wilco <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Marcus wrote:
>>> On 10 June 2014 14:37, Wilco Dijkstra <Wilco.Dijkstra@arm.com> wrote:
>>> > Marcus,
>>> > Can you check this in?
>>> > Wilco
>>> > ChangeLog:
>>> > 2014-06-10 Wilco <email@example.com>
>>> > * sysdeps/generic/math_private.h: Add default HAVE_RM_CTX
>>> > implementation. New function (libc_feholdsetround_noex_ctx).
>>> Have all of Joseph's comments been addressed? I don't see an OK in
>>> the thread....
>> There was an OK in the mail I sent out. The rest of the thread was
>> unrelated to this particular patch.
> It looks like this patch has had OKs from Siddesh and Joseph and a
> tacit OK from Marcus. It tested with no regressions on x86_64, arm and
> aarch64, and looks OK to me too but I don't feel particularly
> qualified in this area.
> Does anybody have any objections to it being applied? If not then I
> can go ahead and apply it if there are no further comments within the
> next 48 hours.
I was about to apply this patch but I realised the version I had
reviewed was the first version of the patch. The second version of the
patch has an #ifndef HAVE_RM_CTX in it which as far as I can tell is a
frowned upon way of handling such architecture defined conditionals.
Joseph, are you happy with the patch as is?
Toolchain Working Group, Linaro