Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 15:04:53 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v2] Add stdc-predef.h. On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 08:21:17AM +0000, Masanori Ogino wrote: > 2016年4月5日(火) 11:23 Masanori Ogino <masanori..ogino@...il.com>: > > > Note that GCC does not support the "Annex G" complex arithmetic even > > though __GCC_IEC_559_COMPLEX is defined. Thus, we leave > > __STDC_IEC_559_COMPLEX__ undefined for now. > > > > Reference: http://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2016/03/31/2 > > > > Signed-off-by: Masanori Ogino <masanori.ogino@...il.com> > > --- > > include/stdc-predef.h | 11 +++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 include/stdc-predef.h > > > > diff --git a/include/stdc-predef.h b/include/stdc-predef.h > > new file mode 100644 > > index 0000000..baa8a54 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/include/stdc-predef.h > > @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ > > +#ifndef _STDC_PREDEF_H > > +#define _STDC_PREDEF_H > > + > > +/* ISO/IEC 10646:2012, equivalent to Unicode 6.1 */ > > +#define __STDC_ISO_10646__ 201206L > > + > > +#if __GCC_IEC_559 > 0 > > +#define __STDC_IEC_559__ 1 > > +#endif > > + > > +#endif > > -- > > 2.7.3 > > > > > ping? I've actually had my own version of this pending for a long time now, so let's discuss it. My version was: #ifndef _STDC_PREDEF_H #define _STDC_PREDEF_H #define __STDC_ISO_10646__ 201103L #define __STDC_UTF_16__ 1 #define __STDC_UTF_32__ 1 #define __STDC_IEC_559__ 1 #define __STDC_NO_ATOMICS__ 1 #endif Obviously my Unicode date is older -- I haven't checked which is more correct, but after the next release we should update to latest Unicode anyway. Other than that, I also made explicit the UTF-16/32 macros that maybe should have been left to the compiler, and defined __STDC_NO_ATOMICS__ which is probably a bad idea since we might or might not support stdatomic.h depending on whether a compiler-provided or valid third-party version is available and working. The biggest question I think is what to do with __STDC_IEC_559__. My intent has always been to "support Annex F" and I think we do that for archs with hard float, but the lack of exceptions and rounding modes might be a conformance gap for soft-float archs. Your use of __GCC_IEC_559 gets around that, but fails to produce the desired value for (maybe hypothetical?) non-GCC compilers that don't define the gcc macro. It might be better to do something like: #if !defined(__GCC_IEC_559) || __GCC_IEC_559 > 0 #define __STDC_IEC_559__ 1 #endif What do you think? Anyone else have thoughts on the matter? Rich
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.