[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAA-4+jdf=s1LZUn_OH=0t7b_-e9HB7RHO+qbwzhydWzPV4cepw@mail.gmail.com>
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.
