I'm happy to accept the change for 3.4.1, but I'm not going to cherry-pick a fix for an unsupported platform after rc3. We haven't had any 68k buildbot in ages (not sure we ever had any, actually).Īndreas, have you signed a contributor's agreement? You can do it online at > Does Python still officially support m68k?Ĭertainly not. I don't think fixing bugs on a specific architecture counts as a new feature. I have modified the patch to include a configure check to set HAVE_GCC_ASM_FOR_MC68881 and use that instead of _mc68000_. m68k affects a relatively small group of people, and Andreas Schwab isĭoes Python still officially support m68k? > I wonder whether we can sneak this in after 3.4 is released? I don't know of any other compiler on m68k. Is the _mc68000_ #define specific to gcc? I wonder whether we can sneak this in after 3.4 is released? It would be painful to have to wait for 3.5, though. Technically I guess this counts as a new feature. The attached patch implements the necessary support for HAVE_PY_SET_53BIT_PRECISION.Īuthor: Mark Dickinson (mark.dickinson) * ![]() M68k has the same problem as x86 with excess floating point precision. Patch to implement HAVE_PY_SET_53BIT_PRECISION for m68k ![]() Arfrever, BreamoreBoy, benjamin.peterson, georg.brandl, larry, loewis, mark.dickinson, mirabilos, pitrou, python-dev, schwab, skrah, tim.petersĬreated on 07:54 by schwab, last changed 16:43 by mark.dickinson.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |