From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-04 12:47:17
"Paul A Bristow" <pbristow_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
| Following the view of C and C++ Working groups at Redmond
| that a working implementation of my proposal for math functions
| was a necessary condition for consideration for a TR-2 standard,
| I have been skirmishing with the problems of converting
| Stephen Moshier's Cephes code into something that works for both C++ and C.
| Several issues have emerged, mainly revealing my ignorance with C
| - a state of bliss in which I would have preferred to remain ;-)
| 1 Should I no longer cater for non-compliant compilers (usually old-style
| function specifications?
| I only have MSVC 8.0 available.
| 2 How do I check that my code is Standard C compatible (as well as C++)?
/TC compile all files as .c
/TP compile all files as .cpp
| 3 How do I tell whether the compiler is a C compiler or a C++ compiler (for
| #if ing).
| #if __cplusplus #if _STDC__ ... ?
#if !defined(__cpluplus )
... we have C
| 5 Do I have to use exclusively C /* */ style comments :-((? (Or can I
| assume that C compilers will understand // comments?)
why do you want to implement it for C also?
| I have also immediately come up against the problems of IEEE 754 compliance,
| argument checks, NaN, infs and exception throwing.
| 6 Should I assume IEEE 754 compliance and signal #error "Only works with
| IEEE compliant compilers"?
but this is not guaranteen by the standard, is it?
| 13 Do you also recommend making checking arguments optional (with #ifdefs)?
| So that those who want the ultimate in speed at any risk can switch checking
first make it work...
| Comments welcome.
good to see you working on this :-)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk