On 7 January 2016 at 13:36, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 7 January 2016 at 13:14, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 6 January 2016 at 21:05, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>> I have been meaning to try solving it in libstdc++ with a new
>>> that includes the libc one and extends it, to see how well that works.
On 7 January 2016 at 13:14, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 6 January 2016 at 21:05, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> I have been meaning to try solving it in libstdc++ with a new
>> that includes the libc one and extends it, to see how well that works.
>> I haven't had time to try that, so it would be prema
On 4 January 2016 at 09:32, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 12/31/2015 01:31 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 31 December 2015 at 11:37, Marc Glisse wrote:
>>> That's what I called "bug" in my message (there are a few bugzilla PRs for
>>> this). It would probably work on Solaris.
>>
>> Yes, the case is
On 2 January 2016 at 11:42, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 31 December 2015 at 18:49, James Dennett wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 4:42 AM, Jonathan Wakely
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 31 December 2015 at 11:54, Dominik Vogt wrote:
>>> > Is there a requirement for a certain minimum Glibc version for
>>>
On 12/31/2015 01:31 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 31 December 2015 at 11:37, Marc Glisse wrote:
>> That's what I called "bug" in my message (there are a few bugzilla PRs for
>> this). It would probably work on Solaris.
>
> Yes, the case is still a mess in the standard and in glibc.
> The "only
On 31 December 2015 at 18:49, James Dennett wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 4:42 AM, Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
>>
>> On 31 December 2015 at 11:54, Dominik Vogt wrote:
>> > Is there a requirement for a certain minimum Glibc version for
>> > this to work?
>>
>> It doesn't work with any glibc, becau
On 31 December 2015 at 13:09, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:42:56PM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 31 December 2015 at 11:54, Dominik Vogt wrote:
>> > Is there a requirement for a certain minimum Glibc version for
>> > this to work?
>>
>> It doesn't work with any glibc, bec
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:42:56PM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 31 December 2015 at 11:54, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> > Is there a requirement for a certain minimum Glibc version for
> > this to work?
>
> It doesn't work with any glibc, because it doesn't declare the C++ overloads.
All right, so
On 31 December 2015 at 11:54, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> Is there a requirement for a certain minimum Glibc version for
> this to work?
It doesn't work with any glibc, because it doesn't declare the C++ overloads.
Libstdc++ has an include/c_compatibility/math.h header that would
include (which declar
On 31 December 2015 at 11:37, Marc Glisse wrote:
> That's what I called "bug" in my message (there are a few bugzilla PRs for
> this). It would probably work on Solaris.
Yes, the case is still a mess in the standard and in glibc.
The "only in namespace std in the second case" part is what I meant
On 31 December 2015 at 11:34, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 10:11:55AM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> is required to declare std::abs and it's unspecified whether
>> it also declares it as ::abs.
>>
>> is required to declare ::abs and it's unspecified whether it
>> also declares
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:45:06PM +0100, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2015, Dominik Vogt wrote:
>
> >The minimal failing program is
> >
> >-- abs.C --
> >#include
> >static float (*p1_)(float) = abs;
> >-- abs.C --
>
> This is allowed to fail. If you include math.h (in addition or
> inst
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015, Dominik Vogt wrote:
The minimal failing program is
-- abs.C --
#include
static float (*p1_)(float) = abs;
-- abs.C --
This is allowed to fail. If you include math.h (in addition or instead of
stdlib.h), it has to work (gcc bug if it doesn't).
See also
http://www.open-
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
There are other overloads of 'abs' declared in math.h / cmath (only in
namespace std in the second case, and there are bugs (or standard issues)
about having them in the global namespace for the first one).
That's not quite accurate, C++11 was altere
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 10:11:55AM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 31 December 2015 at 09:57, Marc Glisse wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 Dec 2015, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >
> >> This snippet ist from the Plumhall 2014 xvs test suite:
> >>
> >> #if CXX03 || CXX11 || CXX14
> >> static float (*p1_)(float) =
On 31 December 2015 at 09:57, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2015, Dominik Vogt wrote:
>
>> This snippet ist from the Plumhall 2014 xvs test suite:
>>
>> #if CXX03 || CXX11 || CXX14
>> static float (*p1_)(float) = abs;
>> ...
>> checkthat(__LINE__, p1_ != 0);
>> #endif
>>
>> (With the tes
On 31 December 2015 at 09:57, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 10:49:18AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
>> This snippet ist from the Plumhall 2014 xvs test suite:
>>
>> #if CXX03 || CXX11 || CXX14
>> static float (*p1_)(float) = abs;
>> ...
>> checkthat(__LINE__, p1_ != 0);
>>
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015, Dominik Vogt wrote:
This snippet ist from the Plumhall 2014 xvs test suite:
#if CXX03 || CXX11 || CXX14
static float (*p1_)(float) = abs;
...
checkthat(__LINE__, p1_ != 0);
#endif
(With the testsuite specific macros doing the obvious). abs() is
declared as:
int abs
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 10:49:18AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> This snippet ist from the Plumhall 2014 xvs test suite:
>
> #if CXX03 || CXX11 || CXX14
> static float (*p1_)(float) = abs;
> ...
> checkthat(__LINE__, p1_ != 0);
> #endif
>
> (With the testsuite specific macros doing the
19 matches
Mail list logo
