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

----- Original Message -----
> From: "JF Bastien" <>
> To: "Craig Howland" <>
> Cc:, "Jeff Johnston" <>
> Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 2:31:46 PM
> Subject: 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 believe that is what he is saying.

> 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!

As mentioned, if the libc++ test passes with an incremental fix, then I am fine 
with it.  If it does not fix the libc++ test, then there is no impetus to get a
partial fix in now and we can figure out a more correct solution.

So, can you put together a patch that fixes the libc++ test, does not touch
stdint.h and is incrementally better for wchar.h?

-- Jeff J.

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