[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140826104433.GW22308@port70.net>
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.
