* Re: Support for C9X in gcc?
1999-09-06 23:48 ` Martin v. Loewis
@ 1999-09-07 1:08 ` Geoff Keating
1999-09-30 18:02 ` Geoff Keating
1999-09-07 1:28 ` Andreas Jaeger
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Geoff Keating @ 1999-09-07 1:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: egcs
"Martin v. Loewis" <martin@mira.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de> writes:
> > As Zack said, most of the C9X work is in the library, but there
> > is some compiler work needed. This work is on my list of things to
> > do, but so is alot of other stuff :-).
>
> Could we come up with a list, just so that people know what needs to
> be done? Currently, I see
>
> - complex (as indicated by Zack),
> - preprocessor changes (which ones are needed, which ones are done?),
>
> What else?
IEEE arithmetic support, particularly the two #pragmas.
--
Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@cygnus.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* Re: Support for C9X in gcc?
1999-09-07 1:08 ` Geoff Keating
@ 1999-09-30 18:02 ` Geoff Keating
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Geoff Keating @ 1999-09-30 18:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: egcs
"Martin v. Loewis" <martin@mira.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de> writes:
> > As Zack said, most of the C9X work is in the library, but there
> > is some compiler work needed. This work is on my list of things to
> > do, but so is alot of other stuff :-).
>
> Could we come up with a list, just so that people know what needs to
> be done? Currently, I see
>
> - complex (as indicated by Zack),
> - preprocessor changes (which ones are needed, which ones are done?),
>
> What else?
IEEE arithmetic support, particularly the two #pragmas.
--
Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@cygnus.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: Support for C9X in gcc?
1999-09-06 23:48 ` Martin v. Loewis
1999-09-07 1:08 ` Geoff Keating
@ 1999-09-07 1:28 ` Andreas Jaeger
1999-09-30 18:02 ` Andreas Jaeger
1999-09-07 8:40 ` Andi Kleen
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Jaeger @ 1999-09-07 1:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Martin v. Loewis; +Cc: gavin, scottrobertladd, gcc, scott
>>>>> Martin v Loewis writes:
>> As Zack said, most of the C9X work is in the library, but there
>> is some compiler work needed. This work is on my list of things to
>> do, but so is alot of other stuff :-).
> Could we come up with a list, just so that people know what needs to
> be done? Currently, I see
> - complex (as indicated by Zack),
> - preprocessor changes (which ones are needed, which ones are done?),
> What else?
AFAIK some printf specifiers are new in C9X and are not supported by
gcc. glibc already supports the specifiers but every usage leads to
warnings by gcc. If you need further details, ask me. I've send this
once as a bug report.
Andreas
--
Andreas Jaeger aj@arthur.rhein-neckar.de jaeger@informatik.uni-kl.de
for pgp-key finger ajaeger@aixd1.rhrk.uni-kl.de
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* Re: Support for C9X in gcc?
1999-09-07 1:28 ` Andreas Jaeger
@ 1999-09-30 18:02 ` Andreas Jaeger
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Jaeger @ 1999-09-30 18:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Martin v. Loewis; +Cc: gavin, scottrobertladd, gcc, scott
>>>>> Martin v Loewis writes:
>> As Zack said, most of the C9X work is in the library, but there
>> is some compiler work needed. This work is on my list of things to
>> do, but so is alot of other stuff :-).
> Could we come up with a list, just so that people know what needs to
> be done? Currently, I see
> - complex (as indicated by Zack),
> - preprocessor changes (which ones are needed, which ones are done?),
> What else?
AFAIK some printf specifiers are new in C9X and are not supported by
gcc. glibc already supports the specifiers but every usage leads to
warnings by gcc. If you need further details, ask me. I've send this
once as a bug report.
Andreas
--
Andreas Jaeger aj@arthur.rhein-neckar.de jaeger@informatik.uni-kl.de
for pgp-key finger ajaeger@aixd1.rhrk.uni-kl.de
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: Support for C9X in gcc?
1999-09-06 23:48 ` Martin v. Loewis
1999-09-07 1:08 ` Geoff Keating
1999-09-07 1:28 ` Andreas Jaeger
@ 1999-09-07 8:40 ` Andi Kleen
1999-09-30 18:02 ` Andi Kleen
1999-09-07 9:15 ` Gerald Pfeifer
1999-09-30 18:02 ` Martin v. Loewis
4 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Andi Kleen @ 1999-09-07 8:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Martin v. Loewis; +Cc: gcc
martin@mira.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (Martin v. Loewis) writes:
> > As Zack said, most of the C9X work is in the library, but there
> > is some compiler work needed. This work is on my list of things to
> > do, but so is alot of other stuff :-).
>
> Could we come up with a list, just so that people know what needs to
> be done? Currently, I see
>
> - complex (as indicated by Zack),
> - preprocessor changes (which ones are needed, which ones are done?),
>
> What else?
Support for declarations not only at the beginning of blocks and
in for loops:
f()
{
int a;
a = 1;
int b;
b = 2;
for (int c = 3; c < 10; c++) { /* c is only in scope in the loop */
...
}
}
I actually once tried to hack that into the gcc bison parser, but I'm
afraid it'll need more work to guarantee at least the same level of
syntax error recovery as the current C grammer has.
What is worse is that C9x "legalized" some gcc extensions, but changed
their semantics slightly. It requires a good migration strategy, and
will cause problems for system headers that use gcc extensions (like
glibc and Linux).
C9x inline implies static
C9x has a similar facility to GCC variable length local arrays. I believe
there are some subtle differences to the similar gcc extension too.
C9x declaration designators are different from gcc ([ x ] = val instead
of [ x ] val )
Other easy changes:
- Support for _Pragma()
- Support for universal character names
- Disable some -pedantic warnings for gcc extensions that are legal
now (e.g. the [0] hack for the last structure element, comma at the
end of enum etc.)
The draft I have also says that they changed the integer constant type
and integer promotion rules and the structure type compatibility rules.
I haven't checked what changes are exactly required for that.
-Andi
--
This is like TV. I don't like TV.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* Re: Support for C9X in gcc?
1999-09-07 8:40 ` Andi Kleen
@ 1999-09-30 18:02 ` Andi Kleen
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Andi Kleen @ 1999-09-30 18:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Martin v. Loewis; +Cc: gcc
martin@mira.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (Martin v. Loewis) writes:
> > As Zack said, most of the C9X work is in the library, but there
> > is some compiler work needed. This work is on my list of things to
> > do, but so is alot of other stuff :-).
>
> Could we come up with a list, just so that people know what needs to
> be done? Currently, I see
>
> - complex (as indicated by Zack),
> - preprocessor changes (which ones are needed, which ones are done?),
>
> What else?
Support for declarations not only at the beginning of blocks and
in for loops:
f()
{
int a;
a = 1;
int b;
b = 2;
for (int c = 3; c < 10; c++) { /* c is only in scope in the loop */
...
}
}
I actually once tried to hack that into the gcc bison parser, but I'm
afraid it'll need more work to guarantee at least the same level of
syntax error recovery as the current C grammer has.
What is worse is that C9x "legalized" some gcc extensions, but changed
their semantics slightly. It requires a good migration strategy, and
will cause problems for system headers that use gcc extensions (like
glibc and Linux).
C9x inline implies static
C9x has a similar facility to GCC variable length local arrays. I believe
there are some subtle differences to the similar gcc extension too.
C9x declaration designators are different from gcc ([ x ] = val instead
of [ x ] val )
Other easy changes:
- Support for _Pragma()
- Support for universal character names
- Disable some -pedantic warnings for gcc extensions that are legal
now (e.g. the [0] hack for the last structure element, comma at the
end of enum etc.)
The draft I have also says that they changed the integer constant type
and integer promotion rules and the structure type compatibility rules.
I haven't checked what changes are exactly required for that.
-Andi
--
This is like TV. I don't like TV.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: Support for C9X in gcc?
1999-09-06 23:48 ` Martin v. Loewis
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
1999-09-07 8:40 ` Andi Kleen
@ 1999-09-07 9:15 ` Gerald Pfeifer
1999-09-07 15:24 ` Martin v. Loewis
1999-09-30 18:02 ` Gerald Pfeifer
1999-09-30 18:02 ` Martin v. Loewis
4 siblings, 2 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Gerald Pfeifer @ 1999-09-07 9:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Martin v. Loewis; +Cc: gavin, scottrobertladd, gcc, scott
On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> > As Zack said, most of the C9X work is in the library, but there
>> is some compiler work needed. This work is on my list of things to
>> do, but so is alot of other stuff :-).
> Could we come up with a list, just so that people know what needs to
> be done? Currently, I see [...]
Martin, how about adding that list (together with the replies you got)
as a new item to our projects.html page?
IMO that would be a very useful thing[TM].
Gerald
--
Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread* Re: Support for C9X in gcc?
1999-09-07 9:15 ` Gerald Pfeifer
@ 1999-09-07 15:24 ` Martin v. Loewis
1999-09-30 18:02 ` Martin v. Loewis
1999-09-30 18:02 ` Gerald Pfeifer
1 sibling, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Martin v. Loewis @ 1999-09-07 15:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pfeifer; +Cc: gavin, scottrobertladd, gcc, scott
> Martin, how about adding that list (together with the replies you got)
> as a new item to our projects.html page?
Done. I've added a few headings to projects.html, and also created
a separate table (c9xstatus.html) which lists the features as they
are listed in the draft.
Please review; comments (in particular on features with "unknown"
status) are appreciated.
Regards,
Martin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: Support for C9X in gcc?
1999-09-07 15:24 ` Martin v. Loewis
@ 1999-09-30 18:02 ` Martin v. Loewis
0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Martin v. Loewis @ 1999-09-30 18:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pfeifer; +Cc: gavin, scottrobertladd, gcc, scott
> Martin, how about adding that list (together with the replies you got)
> as a new item to our projects.html page?
Done. I've added a few headings to projects.html, and also created
a separate table (c9xstatus.html) which lists the features as they
are listed in the draft.
Please review; comments (in particular on features with "unknown"
status) are appreciated.
Regards,
Martin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: Support for C9X in gcc?
1999-09-07 9:15 ` Gerald Pfeifer
1999-09-07 15:24 ` Martin v. Loewis
@ 1999-09-30 18:02 ` Gerald Pfeifer
1 sibling, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Gerald Pfeifer @ 1999-09-30 18:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Martin v. Loewis; +Cc: gavin, scottrobertladd, gcc, scott
On Tue, 7 Sep 1999, Martin v. Loewis wrote:
> > As Zack said, most of the C9X work is in the library, but there
>> is some compiler work needed. This work is on my list of things to
>> do, but so is alot of other stuff :-).
> Could we come up with a list, just so that people know what needs to
> be done? Currently, I see [...]
Martin, how about adding that list (together with the replies you got)
as a new item to our projects.html page?
IMO that would be a very useful thing[TM].
Gerald
--
Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: Support for C9X in gcc?
1999-09-06 23:48 ` Martin v. Loewis
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
1999-09-07 9:15 ` Gerald Pfeifer
@ 1999-09-30 18:02 ` Martin v. Loewis
4 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Martin v. Loewis @ 1999-09-30 18:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gavin; +Cc: scottrobertladd, gcc, scott
> As Zack said, most of the C9X work is in the library, but there
> is some compiler work needed. This work is on my list of things to
> do, but so is alot of other stuff :-).
Could we come up with a list, just so that people know what needs to
be done? Currently, I see
- complex (as indicated by Zack),
- preprocessor changes (which ones are needed, which ones are done?),
What else?
Martin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread