Document -fexcess-precision=16 in tm.texi

  I just happened to stuble on this one while trying to sort out the
RISC-V bits.

gcc/ChangeLog

	* doc/tm.texi (TARGET_C_EXCESS_PRECISION): Add 16.
---
 gcc/doc/tm.texi | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
  

On Fri, 09 Sep 2022 02:46:40 PDT (-0700), Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> I just happened to stuble on this one while trying to sort out the
> RISC-V bits.
>
> gcc/ChangeLog
>
> 	* doc/tm.texi (TARGET_C_EXCESS_PRECISION): Add 16.
> ---
>  gcc/doc/tm.texi | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/doc/tm.texi b/gcc/doc/tm.texi
> index 858bfb80cec..7590924f2ca 100644
> --- a/gcc/doc/tm.texi
> +++ b/gcc/doc/tm.texi
> @@ -1009,7 +1009,7 @@ of the excess precision explicitly added.  For
>  @code{EXCESS_PRECISION_TYPE_FLOAT16}, and
>  @code{EXCESS_PRECISION_TYPE_FAST}, the target should return the
>  explicit excess precision that should be added depending on the
> -value set for @option{-fexcess-precision=@r{[}standard@r{|}fast@r{]}}.
> +value set for @option{-fexcess-precision=@r{[}standard@r{|}fast@r{|}16@r{]}}.
>  Note that unpredictable explicit excess precision does not make sense,
>  so a target should never return @code{FLT_EVAL_METHOD_UNPREDICTABLE}
>  when @var{type} is @code{EXCESS_PRECISION_TYPE_STANDARD},

Just pinging this one as I'm not sure if it's OK to self-approve -- no 
rush on my end, I already figured it out so I don't need the 
documentation any more.
  

On 9/18/22 02:47, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2022 02:46:40 PDT (-0700), Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>> I just happened to stuble on this one while trying to sort out the
>> RISC-V bits.
>>
>> gcc/ChangeLog
>>
>>     * doc/tm.texi (TARGET_C_EXCESS_PRECISION): Add 16.
>> ---
>>  gcc/doc/tm.texi | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/gcc/doc/tm.texi b/gcc/doc/tm.texi
>> index 858bfb80cec..7590924f2ca 100644
>> --- a/gcc/doc/tm.texi
>> +++ b/gcc/doc/tm.texi
>> @@ -1009,7 +1009,7 @@ of the excess precision explicitly added.  For
>>  @code{EXCESS_PRECISION_TYPE_FLOAT16}, and
>>  @code{EXCESS_PRECISION_TYPE_FAST}, the target should return the
>>  explicit excess precision that should be added depending on the
>> -value set for @option{-fexcess-precision=@r{[}standard@r{|}fast@r{]}}.
>> +value set for 
>> @option{-fexcess-precision=@r{[}standard@r{|}fast@r{|}16@r{]}}.
>>  Note that unpredictable explicit excess precision does not make sense,
>>  so a target should never return @code{FLT_EVAL_METHOD_UNPREDICTABLE}
>>  when @var{type} is @code{EXCESS_PRECISION_TYPE_STANDARD},
> 
> Just pinging this one as I'm not sure if it's OK to self-approve -- no 
> rush on my end, I already figured it out so I don't need the 
> documentation any more.

This is fine, looks like a trivial correction.

-Sandra
  

On Sat, 24 Sep 2022 19:13:36 PDT (-0700), sandra@codesourcery.com wrote:
> On 9/18/22 02:47, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Sep 2022 02:46:40 PDT (-0700), Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>>> I just happened to stuble on this one while trying to sort out the
>>> RISC-V bits.
>>>
>>> gcc/ChangeLog
>>>
>>>     * doc/tm.texi (TARGET_C_EXCESS_PRECISION): Add 16.
>>> ---
>>>  gcc/doc/tm.texi | 2 +-
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/gcc/doc/tm.texi b/gcc/doc/tm.texi
>>> index 858bfb80cec..7590924f2ca 100644
>>> --- a/gcc/doc/tm.texi
>>> +++ b/gcc/doc/tm.texi
>>> @@ -1009,7 +1009,7 @@ of the excess precision explicitly added.  For
>>>  @code{EXCESS_PRECISION_TYPE_FLOAT16}, and
>>>  @code{EXCESS_PRECISION_TYPE_FAST}, the target should return the
>>>  explicit excess precision that should be added depending on the
>>> -value set for @option{-fexcess-precision=@r{[}standard@r{|}fast@r{]}}.
>>> +value set for
>>> @option{-fexcess-precision=@r{[}standard@r{|}fast@r{|}16@r{]}}.
>>>  Note that unpredictable explicit excess precision does not make sense,
>>>  so a target should never return @code{FLT_EVAL_METHOD_UNPREDICTABLE}
>>>  when @var{type} is @code{EXCESS_PRECISION_TYPE_STANDARD},
>>
>> Just pinging this one as I'm not sure if it's OK to self-approve -- no
>> rush on my end, I already figured it out so I don't need the
>> documentation any more.
>
> This is fine, looks like a trivial correction.

Thanks, committed.
  

On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 3:25 PM Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2022 19:13:36 PDT (-0700), sandra@codesourcery.com wrote:
> > On 9/18/22 02:47, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> >> On Fri, 09 Sep 2022 02:46:40 PDT (-0700), Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> >>> I just happened to stuble on this one while trying to sort out the
> >>> RISC-V bits.
> >>>
> >>> gcc/ChangeLog
> >>>
> >>>     * doc/tm.texi (TARGET_C_EXCESS_PRECISION): Add 16.
> >>> ---
> >>>  gcc/doc/tm.texi | 2 +-
> >>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/gcc/doc/tm.texi b/gcc/doc/tm.texi
> >>> index 858bfb80cec..7590924f2ca 100644
> >>> --- a/gcc/doc/tm.texi
> >>> +++ b/gcc/doc/tm.texi
> >>> @@ -1009,7 +1009,7 @@ of the excess precision explicitly added.  For
> >>>  @code{EXCESS_PRECISION_TYPE_FLOAT16}, and
> >>>  @code{EXCESS_PRECISION_TYPE_FAST}, the target should return the
> >>>  explicit excess precision that should be added depending on the
> >>> -value set for @option{-fexcess-precision=@r{[}standard@r{|}fast@r{]}}.
> >>> +value set for
> >>> @option{-fexcess-precision=@r{[}standard@r{|}fast@r{|}16@r{]}}.
> >>>  Note that unpredictable explicit excess precision does not make sense,
> >>>  so a target should never return @code{FLT_EVAL_METHOD_UNPREDICTABLE}
> >>>  when @var{type} is @code{EXCESS_PRECISION_TYPE_STANDARD},
> >>
> >> Just pinging this one as I'm not sure if it's OK to self-approve -- no
> >> rush on my end, I already figured it out so I don't need the
> >> documentation any more.
> >
> > This is fine, looks like a trivial correction.
>
> Thanks, committed.

tm.texi is a generated file.  I am checking in this patch to restore bootstrap.
  

On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 15:51:02 PDT (-0700), H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 3:25 PM Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 24 Sep 2022 19:13:36 PDT (-0700), sandra@codesourcery.com wrote:
>> > On 9/18/22 02:47, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 09 Sep 2022 02:46:40 PDT (-0700), Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>> >>> I just happened to stuble on this one while trying to sort out the
>> >>> RISC-V bits.
>> >>>
>> >>> gcc/ChangeLog
>> >>>
>> >>>     * doc/tm.texi (TARGET_C_EXCESS_PRECISION): Add 16.
>> >>> ---
>> >>>  gcc/doc/tm.texi | 2 +-
>> >>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >>>
>> >>> diff --git a/gcc/doc/tm.texi b/gcc/doc/tm.texi
>> >>> index 858bfb80cec..7590924f2ca 100644
>> >>> --- a/gcc/doc/tm.texi
>> >>> +++ b/gcc/doc/tm.texi
>> >>> @@ -1009,7 +1009,7 @@ of the excess precision explicitly added.  For
>> >>>  @code{EXCESS_PRECISION_TYPE_FLOAT16}, and
>> >>>  @code{EXCESS_PRECISION_TYPE_FAST}, the target should return the
>> >>>  explicit excess precision that should be added depending on the
>> >>> -value set for @option{-fexcess-precision=@r{[}standard@r{|}fast@r{]}}.
>> >>> +value set for
>> >>> @option{-fexcess-precision=@r{[}standard@r{|}fast@r{|}16@r{]}}.
>> >>>  Note that unpredictable explicit excess precision does not make sense,
>> >>>  so a target should never return @code{FLT_EVAL_METHOD_UNPREDICTABLE}
>> >>>  when @var{type} is @code{EXCESS_PRECISION_TYPE_STANDARD},
>> >>
>> >> Just pinging this one as I'm not sure if it's OK to self-approve -- no
>> >> rush on my end, I already figured it out so I don't need the
>> >> documentation any more.
>> >
>> > This is fine, looks like a trivial correction.
>>
>> Thanks, committed.
>
> tm.texi is a generated file.  I am checking in this patch to restore bootstrap.

Sorry about that, and thanks for fixing it.