Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2003/04/22/08:09:06
Hello.
Martin Stromberg wrote:
>
> Eli said:
[snip]
> > Also, I'm a bit worried by the typecast juggling you do: won't that
> > get in our way when/if we want to add ``restrict'' qualifiers to the
> > library sources and headers?
>
> Do you mean "unconst" or "return *(double *)(&n)"? Or something else?
>
> For unconst, I have no idea. I've just duplicated earlier present
> unconsts.
>
> For return ..., I don't think restrict have anything to do with
> return.
From reading the C99 standard, my understanding is that restrict allows the
compiler to optimise code within a function, because it only allows access to
data through one pointer.
I wonder if unconst and restrict won't work very well together. I wonder if
the compiler will complain about using unconst on a restrict'ed pointer? Maybe
we will need to include "restrict" in the type information in the parameters
to unconst. Anyway, this is all speculation. We've got bigger things to do
before adding restrict to the function declarations.
[snip]
> The plan is commit strtof() and strtod() soon. We need to decide if
> the integer bit influences the NaNess of a long double for strtold().
>
> Or should I just commit that one too after deciding that that bit must
> be set? (It's what *printf() do. A NaN with that bit cleared is showed
> as Unnormal.)
[snip]
I hope to review the patch today. It would be nice for it to go in before the
code freeze, but I don't think we should rush it.
Reminder: The code freeze for alpha is midnight tomorrow GMT.
Bye, Rich =]
--
Richard Dawe [ http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/ ]
- Raw text -