[profile-stdlib][patch] Stdlib advisory tool implemetation
Paolo Carlini
paolo.carlini@oracle.com
Thu Aug 28 23:58:00 GMT 2008
Hi,
and first congratulations for the excellent progress in this project!
I have a few rather basic comments:
1- Certainly new testcases don't go in 31_*, because those numbers
correspond to chapters in the Standard, and I don't think this is an ISO
Standard yet ;) Maybe subdirectory of the existing onew are ok, as we
are doing for debug-mode. Or, if you want, a separate subdir is ok, but
with a different name.
2- Are you really, really, sure you have to change the compiler driver?
First, we are very close to the end of Stage 1, and we have only a few
days to convince the compiler maintainers that this is an important
change for 4.4.0, in case should be submitted separately and clearly
"advertised". Anyway, for debug-mode and parallel-mode we don't do that,
and, at the very least for consistency, I think we should reconsider
carefully the option of simply defining macros.
3- Similarly, are you really, really, really, sure you need a separate
library? For debug-mode, which isn't really trivial, we managed to avoid
that.
4- Afterwards, there are smaller issues, like I'm seeing many
non-"uglified" symbols in headers included by the user-code, this is a
no-no, *everything* (besides the names of functions, classes and
constants specified in the Standard, of course) must begin by __ or _ +
Capital (macros included, really there are no exceptions).
5- In general, we never include C headers, always the <c*> versions and
we qualify with std:: the calls.
6- More important, **make sure** not using anything not in C89 without
proper configure-time tests checking for the availability of the
facility on the given target (then, conditionally, it's Ok including,
e.g., <execinfo.h>)
Huumm... if the above issues are satisfactorily resolved, I think we are
actually not so far from committing something!
Paolo.
More information about the Libstdc++
mailing list