This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC 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: [C++11] Reclaiming fixed-point suffixes for user-defined literals.


On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 2:30 PM, David Brown
> A C++ template class for "_Fract" support would be straightforward to write,
> and could easily support the formats in N1169. ?But it would be very hard to
> do so in a way that generates small and fast code without resorting to
> inline assembly for targets that have hardware support for such features.

is this some sort of "here an outlanding statement and you would
have to prove a negative to prove me right" or do you have more
factual evidence to back your statement?

> As you say, it is possible that both could be supported - using a template
> class to provide a generic solution, and using the C "_Fract" types for
> specialized classes. ?The first step to that, however, is to allow the
> standard C "_Fract" types to work in C++ as a gcc extension.
>
> The same principle applies to the decimal types and extended float types
> supported by C.

that is one possibility.  However there is a difference between
restricted "extension" and full fledged extensions.  I can see
how a restricted version would work in C++ as an extension, but
I doubt that is what you want.  I can also see how unrestricted
extension (which you seemed to advocate) brings more headache
where a library solution is seamless.

Keeping adding builtin type specifiers to a language is not a
sustainable and responsible way to grow a large language
for the real world.  I appreciate we may disagree on that point.


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