This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the newlib project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Update newlib so that it passes libc++'s tests

>> FWIW, I'm willing to wait if you guys are close to consensus on patch.
>> Otherwise, my intention
>> was to make the snapshot today.
>> My opinion is, if you can make it as good or better than it was and you
>> can achieve the libc++
>> criteria, then fix the exceptions later.  It is a minor issue to add a
>> macro in sys/config.h for
>> any platforms that don't have their compiler setting __WCHAR_MIN__ /
>> __WCHAR_MAX__ and don't want
>> the logic below.

Either is fine with me, let me know what to do.

> No, I was referring to the breakage of making the assumption when you don't
> know.  (I was assuming the fix that Joseph pointed out.) The idea was to
> apply the patch now only to wchar.h--an improvement over what is there now,
> but still with the issue of a possibly-incorrect fallback value--but to not
> make the addition to stdint.h.  At a future time, do the config mess and
> then add to stdint.h.  This is just a thought to avoid introducing an issue
> to stdint.h.
> If this does not achieve the goal of fixing the libc++ test, then I tend to
> agree with Jeff as to it's being an improvement worth doing, even if it
> could use a (complicated) cleanup.

I see. So if I modified my patch to only change the WCHAR_* value for
wchar.h and not stdint.h then you think we'd be good to go?

I also think a partial fix that's incrementally more correct is better
than none at all, but I also want to newlib folks to agree that my
change is indeed good!

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]