[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 16:15:16 +0200
From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: printf issues
* Morten Welinder <mwelinder@...il.com> [2014-04-04 09:32:18 -0400]:
> Unrelatedly, from function fmt_fp:
>
> #define CONCAT2(x,y) x ## y
> #define CONCAT(x,y) CONCAT2(x,y)
> [...]
> long double round = CONCAT(0x1p,LDBL_MANT_DIG);
>
> That code is cute as a Hello Kitty door knocker, but really? Let's hope nobody
> gets the urge to define LDBL_MANT_DIG as 0100 or (80-16) or some such.
before you can mock libc code you need to educate yourself
LDBL_MANT_DIG is an identifier (macro definition) that is
defined by the libc itself (in arch/$ARCH/bits/float.h),
not by the application, nor by the compiler
the libc can internally rely on a different contract about
the identifiers it defines, than application code that has
to rely on the external contracts specified by ISO C
so outside the implementation you shouldn't use such a code
because there is no guarantee how LDBL_MANT_DIG is defined,
but internally the libc knows how it defined its symbols and
thus the code is perfectly reasonable
(this distinction between public interface contracts and
implementation internal interface contracts is often
misunderstood: so don't copy-paste code between libc and
application code without thinking and don't try to reason
about APIs/ABIs used inside the libc based on the public
specification of those APIs/ABIs)
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.
