Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2020 01:25:13 -0500 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Considering x86-64 fenv.s to C On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 04:41:31PM +1100, Damian McGuckin wrote: > On Sat, 22 Feb 2020, Rich Felker wrote: > > >First comment: I couldn't find (maybe I missed?) what you intend fore > >the contents of fenv-generic.c and fenv-trivial.c to be, but I don't > >see what you want them for. fenv.c should just use the macros/inlines > >the fenv_arch.h defines, naturally collapsing to empty functions when > >they do nothing (for softfloat archs). > > I agree. I was seduced by what I thought was a better way. > > I assume that I can also have a > > fenv_arch_soft_float.h I don't follow what this would be for. Presumably arch/generic/fenv_arch.h would be empty and the internal header that includes fenv_arch.h would define dummy fenv accessor helpers in the absence of any defined by fenv_arch.h, or similar. > and > fenv_arch_common_fpu.h > > Each of thes is pulled in at the end of fenv_arch.h for respectively > > a) those machines with a generic soft_float architecture > > b) those machines with non-Intel (hard) FPUs. Other way around. fenv_impl.h (this would probably be the right name according to existing patterns in musl) would include fenv_arch.h and then define defaults for anything not defined by the latter. Then source files don't include fenv_arch.h at all, only fenv_impl.h. Ordering the inclusion this direction keeps duplicate logic out of arch-specific files. 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.