From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Aug  9  5:29:53 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from fanf.noc.demon.net (fanf.noc.demon.net [195.11.55.83])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 347B51525A; Mon,  9 Aug 1999 05:29:43 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from fanf@demon.net)
Received: from fanf by fanf.noc.demon.net with local (Exim 3.02 #13)
	id 11DoWM-000LLp-00; Mon, 09 Aug 1999 13:27:18 +0100
To: green@FreeBSD.org
From: Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
Cc: hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: quad_t and portability
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9908080043100.31981-100000@janus.syracuse.net>
References: <199908080338.UAA01158@vashon.polstra.com>
Message-Id: <E11DoWM-000LLp-00@fanf.noc.demon.net>
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 1999 13:27:18 +0100
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

"Brian F. Feldman" <green@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>
>Is there anyone who is specifically checking for long long
>C9X-compliancy in the source tree (mainly libc)?

I started reviewing libc for C9X features in general -- a fair amount
of work is required to update macros and typedefs in <inttypes.h>
(plus the new <stdint.h>).

Doing a thorough job is difficult because C9X is somewhat gratuitously
incompatible with gnu C (e.g. the spelling of __complex__, zero-length
arrays in structures, macro varargs, etc.) and gnu C doesn't yet
support restrict.

Tony.
-- 
f.a.n.finch    dot@dotat.at    fanf@demon.net    e pluribus unix


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message