Re: Re: [PATCH v2] Add stdc-predef.h.

[Masanori Ogino <masanori.ogino@gmail.com>]

2016-06-04 14:04 GMT+09:00 Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>:
> On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 01:19:47PM +0900, Masanori Ogino wrote:
>> > #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.
>
> There's an unpolished set of tools that do the job, which I posted the
> the mailing list several years back. I should publish them in a more
> permanent and accessible place though.
>
> Also the tools are not entirely sufficient to perform an upgrade.
> Adding new case mappings requires some manual work, checking for case
> mappings in Unicode that musl doesn't produce and adding the right
> table tricks to get them.

OK.

>> > #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?
>
> Even old (pre-4.8) gcc doesn't use stdc-predef.h, but you can add
> "-include stdc-predef.h" to its specs file. Presumably you can do
> similar tricks with other compilers (via a wrapper script if nothing
> else).

I see. I don't have any strong opinion against !defined(__GCC_IEC_559)
clause and I'm happy with it. I guess that such users are wise enough
to define the proper __GCC_IEC_559 value after reviewing the header,
though.

I'm sorry for the delay.

-- 
Masanori Ogino