| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1235.1 | | QUARRY::neth | Craig Neth | Thu Mar 20 1997 09:27 | 7 |
| > 1) Could you mention the -taso ld option in the f77/f90 reference pages?
> The f77 driver seems to take it and do the right thing with it.
> I don't like the cc(1) text, it should say something like:
> "helps port programs that assume addresses can fit in 32-bit variables"
Could you elaborate on what you don't like about the cc(1) text so that
I can ask the writer to fix it?
|
| 1235.2 | "useful for porting 32-bit programs" too broad | SUBPAC::FARICELLI | | Thu Mar 20 1997 11:18 | 11 |
|
The -taso option on the cc(1) man page says in conclusion:
"The -taso flag is useful for porting 32-bit programs to DEC OSF/1"
"useful for porting 32-bit programs" is a bit too broad for my tastes.
I'd prefer what I wrote in my base note, something like
"helps port programs that assume addresses can be stored into
32-bit variables (e.g. assigning a pointer to an int)."
-- John
|
| 1235.3 | Noted | QUARRY::neth | Craig Neth | Thu Mar 20 1997 13:28 | 4 |
| re: .2:
QAR # 52099 has been entered on your behalf, and assigned to the cc(1)
manpage maintainer.
|
| 1235.4 | And fixed | QUARRY::neth | Craig Neth | Fri Mar 21 1997 10:05 | 9 |
| re: .2, I just got this:
Thank you for this QAR.
The text in the cc(1) manpage has been changed to reflect the
changes suggested in the QAR. The changes will appear in the
PTmin/V4.0D version of the manpage.
\kch -- 3/21/97
|
| 1235.5 | We'll see.... | SUBPAC::FARICELLI | | Fri Mar 21 1997 12:27 | 9 |
|
We'll see. I suggested changes to the cc(1) man page regarding
-ieee/-ieee_with_no_inexact, and after a QAR, several emails
regarding the wording, there seems to be no change in the man page.
-- John
|
| 1235.6 | | QUARRY::neth | Craig Neth | Fri Mar 21 1997 15:43 | 9 |
| I just talked to the maintainer and he assures me the change to -taso
is in place. As for -ieee, he could not remember any specific conversation
with you. The -ieee documenation was extensively reorganized in V4.0, with
most of the obscure stuff being moved off to it's own man page.
(-ieee_with_no_inexact is not even mentioned on the cc(1) man page anymore).
Could you please look at the V4.0 cc man page; if you still have objections
please make them known so we can get them addressed.
|
| 1235.7 | Some day, I'll get to read it | SUBPAC::FARICELLI | | Fri Mar 21 1997 17:20 | 10 |
|
I don't have access to any V4 systems, some day.
My main objection is that the cc(1) man page vis-a-vis -ieee_xxxx
told you all the flags, preprocessor macros, etc. that were set,
but never told you what the heck "inexact" meant. Or the very large
performance hit -ieee_with_inexact causes on EV4 systems.
-- jf
|
| 1235.8 | | QUARRY::neth | Craig Neth | Fri Mar 21 1997 17:23 | 20 |
| > Or the very large
> performance hit -ieee_with_inexact causes on EV4 systems.
Right. That's part of what got fixed in V4.0. Here is part of the
text on the ieee(3) page:
" If your program uses the constants IEEE_TRAP_ENABLE_INE or IEEE_STATUS_INE,
you are using the inexact result feature of the IEEE floating-point stan-
dard. Assembly language programmers can access the inexact result feature
by using the sui suffix on floating-point instruction opcodes. C language
programmers can access the inexact result feature by replacing the -ieee
flag to the cc command with the -ieee_with_inexact flag. On some Alpha
implementations the inexact result feature is implemented by trapping to a
software emulator. Using sui floating-point instructions or the
-ieee_with_inexact flag might cause a significant drop in performance on
such implementations. Because of this, you should use the inexact result
feature only in those few program statements where inexact signaling is
needed.
"
|
| 1235.9 | ok | TLE::WHITLOCK | Stan Whitlock | Mon Mar 24 1997 11:13 | 5 |
| RE: .0
I'll put those on the list of stuff to fix in the f77(1) and f90(1) man pages.
Thanks /Stan
|