[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAA-4+jcOtVfpLKsEW+ZbVKH0LYnHO4S61uNtXF+gCWAfqbxzJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 23:50:59 +0900
From: Masanori Ogino <masanori.ogino@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Defining __STDC_ISO_10646__, __STDC_IEC_559__ and so on
with musl?
2016-03-31 23:35 GMT+09:00 Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net>:
> * Masanori Ogino <masanori.ogino@...il.com> [2016-03-31 20:34:22 +0900]:
>> The C standard specifies some predefined macros to determine
>> implementation-dependent characteristics, e.g. __STDC_ISO_10646__.
>> However, it seems that those macros are omitted with musl-based
>> toolchains. (I read cross-musl patches and tested with Gentoo's musl
>> toolchain.)
>>
>> glibc handles them using a small header file named stdc-predef.h and a
>
> yes, this is the right approach we just never got
> around adding it. i think it should contain
OK, I will try. I hit a problem with such macros, so I sent a mail. :)
> #if __GCC_IEC_559 > 0
> #define __STDC_IEC_559__ 1
> #endif
>
> #if __GCC_IEC_559_COMPLEX > 0
> #define __STDC_IEC_559_COMPLEX__ 1
> #endif
>
> #define __STDC_ISO_10646__ 201505L
ISO/IEC 10646:2014/Amd 1:2015, right?
>> hook to GCC. (glibc has the header separately and GCC treats it
>> specially since the macros should be defined even if the source code
>> doesn't include any headers.)
>>
>> Could we provide the macros with similar approaches or patches to GCC
>> to just define them?
>>
>
> i think we don't have to modify gcc,
> on *-linux* targets t-glibc is included
> which does the stdc-predef.h include magic.
OK.
--
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.
