|Subject:||Re: [Tinycc-devel] Opinions on constexpr being added to C2X?|
|Date:||Sun, 17 Oct 2021 11:02:41 +0200|
AFAIK, all stuff for complex is missing and the generic math macros are not implemented
The type-generic macros are as follows:
fabs fabsf fabs fabsl cabsf cabs cabsl
exp expf exp expl cexpf cexp cexpl
log logf log logl clogf clog clogl
pow powf pow powl cpowf cpow cpowl
sqrt sqrtf sqrt sqrtl csqrtf csqrt csqrtl
sin sinf sin sinl csinf csin csinl
cos cosf cos cosl ccosf ccos ccosl
tan tanf tan tanl ctanf ctan ctanl
asin asinf asin asinl casinf casin casinl
acos acosf acos acosl cacosf cacos cacosl
atan atanf atan atanl catanf catan catanl
sinh sinhf sinh sinhl csinhf csinh csinhl
cosh coshf cosh coshl ccoshf ccosh ccoshl
tanh tanhf tanh tanhl ctanhf ctanh ctanhl
asinh asinhf asinh asinhl casinhf casinh casinhl
acosh acoshf acosh acoshl cacoshf cacosh cacoshl
atanh atanhf atanh atanhl catanhf catanh catanhl
Atomics are here now; I think the only thing missing is wide-chars/strings, no?
I have a patch to support a number of c11/c2x features (including widestrings), but the last time I posted it on this list I was met with crickets, so I am not sure what else to do with it (aside from continuing to use it for myself).
On Thu, 14 Oct 2021, Christian Jullien wrote:
> I’m big fan of constexpr in C++ that allows compile time computations and more code elimination. I probably overuse constexpr in my code.
> I’m not sure that the nature of tcc will find a big impact with constexpr support.
> There are many missing C11 features that should be handled before this one.
> From: Tinycc-devel
> [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of
> Marcus Johnson
> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2021 10:36
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: [Tinycc-devel] Opinions on constexpr being added to C2X?
> There's a new proposal to add it, and the standard is especially interested in hearing from small compiler devs their opinions on such a feature.
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|