This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug libstdc++/17243] Test failures due to missing C99 symbols
- From: "gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 3 Nov 2004 00:28:13 -0000
- Subject: [Bug libstdc++/17243] Test failures due to missing C99 symbols
- References: <20040830181541.17243.danglin@gcc.gnu.org>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Additional Comments From gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2004-11-03 00:28 -------
Subject: Re: Test failures due to missing C99 symbols
"bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
| Simple grep:
|
| /include/std/std_complex.h: __complex_arg(__complex__ float __z) { return
| __builtin_cargf(__z); }
|
| Simple theory: on targets without __builtin_cargf, cargf gets referenced with
| this call. However, no checking for cargf or provided function in libmath stubs
| for this. So, the failure.
|
| In fact, in 2000 cargf was taken out of libmath, because it was unused.
At that moment we did not bother about the namespace issues and we did
not use the built-ins as a way to walk around our failure to correctly
implement that C-header stuff.
| I think this is related, in general, to the meta-issue of what the hell libmath
| is supposed to do, and if perhaps it's time for fortran, java, c++ etc to all
| punt to a top-level C99 math library for this stuff if native libc/libm can't
| hack it. And why stop there... just import all of glibc + GSL? Ack.
I would not go as far as importing the whole monster glibc+GSL. But, most
definitely it is time that we have the math stuff in libgcc and shared
by all other front-ends. It does not make sense that each
front-end/library code the same hack endlessly. And even more so,
the compiler could safely base optimizations on its knowledge of the
stuff there -- that is an area where ICC shrines.
-- Gaby
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17243