[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2020 11:47:38 +1100 (AEDT)
From: Damian McGuckin <damianm@....com.au>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Considering x86-64 fenv.s to C
Questions of style:
When working inside 'fenv.c', what should internal routines and
definition be called to avoid namespace pollution, retain clarity,
and so on.
Note that 'fenv.c' is designed to never call any routines external to
itself.
Do we keep using
FE_<SOMETHING>
and
fe<SOMETHING>
where <SOMETHING> is some meaningful name,
to conform to the external interface which we assume will never clash.
Or do we use
__<SOMETHING>
as is used or
__flt_rounds
which is used by FTL_ROUNDS when recovering the current IEEE 754 rounding
style, as opposed to the architecture dependent one.
Thanks - Damian
Pacific Engineering Systems International, 277-279 Broadway, Glebe NSW 2037
Ph:+61-2-8571-0847 .. Fx:+61-2-9692-9623 | unsolicited email not wanted here
Views & opinions here are mine and not those of any past or present employer
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.
