On Dec 17, 2014, at 11:12, Steve Kargl <s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 04:30:32PM +0100, Ed Schouten wrote:
…
>>> This comment isn't true! These functions pre-date C11 by years.
>>> See r151865. These functions were designed to deal with gcc's
>>> poorly implemented I. See the paragraph above your comment.
>>
>> Keep in mind that the phrasing is intended to say that CMPLX*() and
>> friends are part of C11. Those do not pre-date C11.
>
> The phrasing is wrong. cpack[fl] came at least 6 years before
> C11 and were designed to work around defects in C99. CMPLX[FL]
> were introduced into C11 to address those defects. Changing
> cpack[fl] to CMPLX[FL] and claiming that the functions are
> modeled after the C11 macros is wrong (unless the meaning of
> "before" and "after" have changed).
Hi Dimitry/Ed/Steve,
Does it make sense to take the logic that Ed added and guard it with a
conditional so people building the functions can use the C+11 definitions
instead of the C99 definitions? This could preserve the old behavior for folks
who don’t have C+11 capable compilers, but would allow us (and others) who do
via clang or newer versions of gcc to use the new C+11 idioms, similar to some
of the other macros in sys/cdefs.h, et al.
Thank you!
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
