Re: [PATCH v4] Prepare vfprintf to use __printf_fp/__printf_fphex with float128 arg

["Gabriel F. T. Gomes" <gabriel at inconstante dot eti dot br>]

On Thu, May 09 2019, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
> 
> On 25/02/2019 10:39, Gabriel F. T. Gomes wrote:
> > 
> > Tested for powerpc64le (with additional patches to actually enable the
> > use of these preparations) and for x86_64.
> 
> It at least shows no issue when applied against master, although current 
> tests not stress the code itself. And it seems that the code would only be 
> enabled for powerpc with -mabi=ieeelongdouble, so I would if it would be 
> better to actually push this patch along with powerpc64 -mabi=ieeelongdouble
> patchset.

Well, I intentionally write small patches that are valid for master, so
they can be applied sooner than later.  I have written many patches this
way to avoid the burden of carrying patches on personal branches.

I also provided a link to such branch where the changes in this patch
get tested for many of the functions added by subsequent patches.

I was hoping that these things combined would provide a good
justification for acceptance.  With that in mind, do you have an
objection to this patch?

> > +   PRINTF_LDBL_USES_FLOAT128 is used on platforms where the long double
> > +   format used to be different from the IEC 60559 double format *and*
> > +   also different from the Quadruple 128-bits IEC 60559 format (such as
> > +   the IBM Extended Precision format on powerpc or the 80-bits IEC 60559
> > +   format on x86), but was later converted to the Quadruple 128-bits IEC
> > +   60559 format, which is the same format that the _Float128 always has
> > +   (hence the `USES_FLOAT128' suffix in the name of the flag).  When set
> > +   to one, this macros indicates that long double values are to be
> 
> s/macros/macro

Thanks.  Fixed locally.

> > +#if __HAVE_FLOAT128_UNLIKE_LDBL
> > +# define PARSE_FLOAT_VA_ARG_EXTENDED(INFO)				      \
> > [...]
> 
> Do we really to continue use the macro-style to extend this code? I usually
> think is is more readable to just use static inline function instead, 
> something as:

Sounds good to me.  I'll send a new version.

> static void
> parse_float_va_arg_extended (struct printf_info *info,
>                              union printf_arg *the_arg, int is_long_double,
>                              unsigned int mode_flags, va_list *ap)

Should I also add an __always_inline attribute?

> > +#define PARSE_FLOAT_VA_ARG(INFO)					      \
> > [...]
> 
> Same as before.

OK.