On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:24 AM, FX <fxcoud...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Yeah, a portable (C and C++) static assert would be nice. And also pushing >> this to gmp then. >> >> In the meantime I see nothing wrong in "merging" from GMP. > > One question, one comment: > > 1. can I count your “I see nothing wrong” as an approval, as in “global > reviewers can approve changes to any part of the compiler or associated > libraries”?
Well, kind of. But Jakub is as well, so I don't want to override him. So please wait for an ack from Jakub. I agree with him that the casts served a purpose and that, if removed, they need to be replaced with an appropriate assertion measure. Given that inline asm is a GCC extension calling those casts another extension from the LLVM side is really odd. In fact I think the casts are a very good way of doing this kind of assertions. Are they documented in that regard? If so I'd say it's really really LLVM that should be fixed and the workaround on the GCC side is to pass that -fhineous-gnu-extensions flag. > 2. I think your quotes around “merging” mean you’re not actually thinking of > a merge, but for clarification’s sake: GMP’s longlong.h has apparently a long > history of its own, and has many differences with GCC’s version. The closest > thing to an “upstream” for us would probably be glibc (see the diff > attached), from which we last merged on 2014-04-22. I see. I suppose the gcc side includes the proposed patch and glibc still has those casts, right? In that case there is nothing to merge from glibc (but to glibc eventually). Richard. > Thanks, > FX > > >
