This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the newlib project.
Re: [PATCH] Update newlib so that it passes libc++'s tests
- From: Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn at redhat dot com>
- To: JF Bastien <jfb at chromium dot org>
- Cc: Craig Howland <howland at lgsinnovations dot com>, newlib at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 15:25:08 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Update newlib so that it passes libc++'s tests
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CABdywOcnSpU=r5NGDDzhea4gxALh8LRL4A9vRY31wFjLhtF5zA at mail dot gmail dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1312170153500 dot 29265 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <CABdywOdE5rkMLOyK3NrM+k+OrpRLkbjPp5oddqDz9vv5wKkd0A at mail dot gmail dot com> <52B220A8 dot 4010901 at LGSInnovations dot com> <CABdywOcPo-_RSjBiWeZNeMaB5Aih23OT7u3qXL896NfcqEu6bg at mail dot gmail dot com> <156240854 dot 42718969 dot 1387564988624 dot JavaMail dot root at redhat dot com> <52B498C3 dot 8000108 at LGSInnovations dot com> <CABdywOd7G0W2b2j1WZBZQDJbBk6z_xBpQXXhW4Gahp+Yasq8fQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
----- Original Message -----
> From: "JF Bastien" <email@example.com>
> To: "Craig Howland" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Cc: email@example.com, "Jeff Johnston" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> 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.