Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 19:11:00 -0500 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Considering x86-64 fenv.s to C On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 10:59:07AM +1100, Damian McGuckin wrote: > > Is MUSL ever likely to support Sparc64? > > If so, there is tweak needed for the rounding to match the API. For > some reason, what is returned to a user program query is just a > right shifted version of what is in the register, with an equivalent > left shift for when the mode is set. Very odd. > > The default shift for everything else would be 0. Unless the bits are in the high portion of the register, we can just define the FE_* constants to match their location in the register. Otherwise defining a shift, zero by default, is not a big deal. I wouldn't worry about this now. It's not like a shift is hard to add later if needed; it doesn't invalidate the proposed design. Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.