[PATCH v2 10/12] soft-fp: Add the lack of implementation for 128 bit

[DJ Delorie]

Zong Li <zong@andestech.com> writes:
> +#ifndef __FP_FRAC_SUB_8
> +# define __FP_FRAC_SUB_8(r7, r6, r5, r4, r3, r2, r1, r0,                \
. . . .
> +      r2 -= __FP_FRAC_SUB_8_c2;                                         \
> +      __FP_FRAC_SUB_8_c3 |= __FP_FRAC_SUB_8_c2 && (y2 == x2);           \
> +      r3 = x3 - y3;                                                     \
> +      __FP_FRAC_SUB_8_c4 = r3 > x3;                                     \
> +      r2 -= __FP_FRAC_SUB_8_c3;                                         \

r2 ? Not r3?  There are three other cases that look like cut-n-paste
without a tweak...

> +      r2 -= __FP_FRAC_SUB_8_c4;                                         \
> +      r2 -= __FP_FRAC_SUB_8_c5;                                         \
> +      r2 -= __FP_FRAC_SUB_8_c6;                                         \

Should these be r4, r5, r6, and r7 ?

Do we know if this code ever gets tested with our testsuite?  Since
these are new macros, I'd expect a new test to go with them...