This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: std_limits.h os_defines.h
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Subject: Re: std_limits.h os_defines.h
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: 10 Aug 2001 19:57:02 +0200
- Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at codesourcery dot com>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>, Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org" <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
- References: <272070000.997465839@warlock.codesourcery.com>
Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:
| --On Friday, August 10, 2001 07:36:47 PM +0200 Gabriel Dos Reis
| <gdr@codesourcery.com> wrote:
|
| >
| > | Gaby, unless you can think of a reason not to use this, you might
| > | as well remove __glibcpp_plain_char_is_signed, and use
| > | __CHAR_UNSIGNED__ directly.
| >
| > Richard,
| >
| > What about the below?
|
| I'm not Richard, but it looks good to me, if it tests OK.
Bootstrap and regression-test are running.
| You could
| go one step further and eliminate plain_char_is_signed and just
| use !__CHAR_UNSIGNED__ instead, but the current thing is fine too.
| If we ever really make V3 work with another compiler, it will be
| good to have the indirection, I guess.
Hmm, I think that <limits> will get probably closely tied to GCC when
we'll put support for NaNs and other goodies. So I guess, people
using V3 sources codes with other compilers will have to roll their
own <limits> anyway.
However, I'd like to hear other options.
-- Gaby
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com