This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [v3] Return of the son of fp printing.
On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 07:45:36PM -0400, Jerry Quinn wrote:
> Phil Edwards writes:
> > On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 07:11:41PM -0400, Jerry Quinn wrote:
> > > Glibc uses a version of GMP under the
> > > covers for its printing and it seemed like too much work and licensing hassle
> > > to bring it over.
> > It's already required to build F95, and there's increased pressure to
> > import it into the GCC tree. So this may not be so far away as you think.
> This would be excellent for allowing a local implementation without falling
> back to printf.
Perhaps we should coordinate with the Fortran people and push for its
inclusion? If it would save us huge chunks of labor, that sounds like
a maintainence win.
Question: Assume that GMP is available, then how much of this do we still
want? Do we:
1) keep __convert_from_v as our fallback, or
2) use this work as a fallback, or
3) just say "hey, we're building GMP as part of the compiler installation,
we know it's available, we don't need a fallback at all," or
If GMP goes in, it'll probably only be for 3.6 (maybe 3.5). I wonder if
the floatconv.cc change is too large for 3.5?
> > Mark froze the branch a couple hours ago, so we'll pretend you wrote 3.4.x
> > instead. :-)
> Yeah, I just saw after posting. Phooey. What should the linker-map change
> look like now?
Do we want a change like this for the current release branch at all?
> Do we really have to uglify all the static and local stuff in a cc file? No
> symbols there are going to be visible to the outside world. And uglifying
> makes the code so much harder to read :-)
It's just that seeing non-uglified stuff inside namespace std triggers a
reflexive scream in me. We could move them elsewhere?
> > > +++ include/bits/locale_facets.tcc 29 Aug 2004 22:22:27 -0000
> > > @@ -36,6 +36,7 @@
> > > #pragma GCC system_header
> > >
> > > #include <limits> // For numeric_limits
> > > +#include <cmath> // For log10
> > Is there no easier (yet safe) way to get log10 than by pulling in the entire
> > math header? (I don't know, it's an honest question.)
> How about __builtin_log10? More generally, are all these builtins safe on the
> 3.4 branch?
Good question, I don't know offhand.
Behind everything some further thing is found, forever; thus the tree behind
the bird, stone beneath soil, the sun behind Urth. Behind our efforts, let
there be found our efforts.
- Ascian saying, as related by Loyal to the Group of Seventeen