[Bug libstdc++/17243] Test failures due to missing C99 symbols

gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Wed Nov 3 00:28:00 GMT 2004


------- 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



More information about the Gcc-bugs mailing list