This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the crossgcc project.
See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 10:49:35PM -0800, Dan Kegel wrote:
<snip>
Attached is a patch from addsub@eyou.com that he says patches glibc and makes printf("%f", 1.0) work again. I haven't tested it, just wanted to give Nico a chance to have a look at it. Not sure if addsub wrote this himself or whether it's suitable for glibc mainline (I've asked him). - Dan
I may have missed a definitive conclusion, but addsub's patch lets http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/920501-8.c pass succesfully, as well as some small test of my own. I don't know if the deleting of sysdeps/arm/ieee754.h matters, but so far I haven't noticed any detrimental effects.
So, what's the status of this fix?
Probably needs regression testing on a couple other arm processors with and without softfp to make sure it doesn't cause any grief. Did you test it *without* softfp? - Dan
-- My technical stuff: http://kegel.com My politics: see http://www.misleader.org for examples of why I'm for regime change
------ Want more information? See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/ Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |