This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH, MIPS] Ensure softfloat and single float take precendence in consistency checks
- From: Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
- To: Matthew Fortune <Matthew dot Fortune at imgtec dot com>
- Cc: "binutils\ at sourceware dot org" <binutils at sourceware dot org>, Andrew Bennett <Andrew dot Bennett at imgtec dot com>
- Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2014 23:36:29 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH, MIPS] Ensure softfloat and single float take precendence in consistency checks
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <6D39441BF12EF246A7ABCE6654B0235320F087FD at LEMAIL01 dot le dot imgtec dot org> <874mwcx79s dot fsf at googlemail dot com> <6D39441BF12EF246A7ABCE6654B0235320F0B3CB at LEMAIL01 dot le dot imgtec dot org>
Matthew Fortune <Matthew.Fortune@imgtec.com> writes:
>> It'd be cleaner to have just one copy of the code at the head of the
>> function rather than duplicate it in each case statement.
> I've ended up with something that is still quite complex as I have
> accounted for all of:
> 1) An unknown fpabi must be reported as such rather than being
> incompatible with or requiring any specific option.
> 2) fpabi 4 is unsupported regardless.
> 3) All softfloat checks had to be pulled up to the top to ensure
> that the single float check did not precede any of the softfloat
> checks. (So I moved all of single and soft to the top).
> 4) Ensure that only one warning comes out.
> I also restated all the inconsistencies in terms of what option is
> required to make the fpabi valid rather than sometimes saying what
> is incompatible.
> What do you think of this set of checks? I don't mind going over this
> again and trying something else if you have any more suggestions or
Yeah, that's not pretty either. :-( Code getting this messy seems
like a good indication that we're not using the right representation.
It really shouldn't be this hard or need this much cut-&-paste...
Ah well. Let's go with your original patch.