Re: C9x conformance check

[Andreas Jaeger <aj at arthur dot rhein-neckar dot de>]

>>>>> Zack Weinberg writes:

 > I did a check of conformance to the draft standard in the headers provided
 > by gcc and glibc.  Take the results with a grain of salt;  there may be
 > problems with the checker, also I have only the April draft and egcs-1.0.3.
 > I wasn't able to check typedefs or struct definitions.
Zack,

here're just two short comments to make your list a bit shorter;-).

 > [...]

 > Problems which are libc's fault:

 > [..]

 > math.h:  isinf() should be a macro; furthermore, it's hiding under
 > __USE_MISC.
 > scalb(), scalbl(), scalbf() should be under _BSD_SOURCE; C9x only has
 > scalbn().
 > C9x specifies gamma(); libc only has tgamma().
That has changed in the last draft.  tgamma is now specified by C9x.

 > Problems due to interaction effects or where either party can be blamed:

 > [..]

 > stdbool.h does not exist.  This header is trivial but we should agree on who
 > provides it.
It is already provided by the latest egcs snapshots and will be in
egcs 1.1.

Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger   aj@arthur.rhein-neckar.de    jaeger@informatik.uni-kl.de
  for pgp-key finger ajaeger@aixd1.rhrk.uni-kl.de