Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 12:44:35 +0200 From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Multi-threaded performance progress * Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@...ia.fr> [2014-08-26 09:04:14 +0200]: > I would be very much in favor of getting C11 in one version or another > into the current release, as you said. In any case, it would be good > if we could claim support for C11 for that release. That would be > another item where musl could claim to be first, at least before > glibc. There is not much missing, I think. Come to mind: > > - one or two simple functions, such as the timespec_get that I posted > - if we don't have C11 threads the feature test macro __STDC NO_THREAD__ > - perhaps some other feature test macros for unsupported features further missing c11 things: time.h needs TIME_UTC for timespec_get base parameter stdalign.h should only define alignas and alignof ifndef c++ assert.h needs static_assert ifndef c++ float.h needs *_DECIMAL_DIG and *_HAS_SUBNORM (i have a patch for this) uchar.h stdatomic.h (or __STDC_NO_ATOMICS__) (thread_local, alignas, alignof, static_assert, noreturn are keywords in c++, stdnoreturn.h is not specified by c++14 so that probably does not need the ifndef but the others do)
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.