This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH v2 06/30] ldbl-128ibm-compat: Test positional arguments

From: Paul E Murphy <murphyp at linux dot ibm dot com>
To: "Gabriel F. T. Gomes" <gabriel at inconstante dot net dot br>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 10:55:09 -0600
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/30] ldbl-128ibm-compat: Test positional arguments
References: <20191025153410.15405-1-gabriel@inconstante.net.br> <20191025153410.15405-7-gabriel@inconstante.net.br>



On 10/25/19 10:33 AM, Gabriel F. T. Gomes wrote:

From: "Gabriel F. T. Gomes" <gabrielftg@linux.ibm.com>

No changes since v1.

-- 8< --
The format string can request positional parameters, instead of relying
on the order in which they appear as arguments.  Since this has an
effect on how the type of each argument is determined, this patch
extends the test cases to use positional parameters with mixed double
and long double types, to verify that the IEEE long double
implementations of *printf work correctly in this scenario.

Tested for powerpc64le.

OK. Are there any other weird cases which should be tested against? Arethese meant to be implicit tests of the underlying ABI?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH v2 06/30] ldbl-128ibm-compat: Test positional arguments
  - From: Gabriel F. T. Gomes

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]