Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 13:19:47 +0900 From: Masanori Ogino <masanori.ogino@...il.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v2] Add stdc-predef.h. Hello, 2016-06-04 4:04 GMT+09:00 Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>: > 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. Sure. By the way, is there any automation script to update them using the Unicode database? I couldn't find that. > 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. Agreed. > 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? > Well, is there any compiler that does not define __GCC_IEC_559 but uses stdc-predef.h? > Rich -- Masanori Ogino
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.