Subject: Re: [boost] [predef] Status and review results?
From: Lars Viklund (zao_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-04-21 19:45:42
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 01:22:33AM +0400, Andrey Semashev wrote:
> On Sunday 21 April 2013 16:00:49 Rene Rivera wrote:
> > Just a quick message to mention that I've finished all the review related
> > changes to the Predef library. And done some of the future tasks on the
> > library. In particular the addition of endianness definitions and the
> > moving of MinGW as a platform instead of a compiler (and hence the addition
> > of BOOST_PLAT category of macros.
> > And the one question I have is.. When will the review results of the
> > library be decided on? I ask for two reasons. One, the obvious, is just to
> > know if it's accepted or not. And to know if it's not accepted and hence
> > that I should spend time to recreate a "boost/detail/endian.hpp" header
> > that implements the Predef logic for endian detection.
> > Note the project move to Github earlier this year (in preparation for the
> > Boost git move). You can find the project at <
> > https://github.com/grafikrobot/boost-predef>, and browse the current
> > documentation at <http://tinyurl.com/cqqhhev>.
> I noticed this in the docs:
> Intel IA-64 architecture.
> x86_64 (aka amd64 and Intel64), which is a widespread extension to IA32 (x86),
> is not the same as IA64, which is implemented in Itanium CPUs. Could you,
> please, separate these two architectures?
> Also, FYI there is a new "architecture" x86_32 on Linux, which is not legacy
> x86 described by your BOOST_ARCH_X86_32 macro. x86_32 is essentially x86_64
> with 32 bit pointers and size types. You should probably make this clear in
> the docs and I'd even rename BOOST_ARCH_X86_32 to BOOST_ARCH_X86_LEGACY or
> something because of this and introduce BOOST_ARCH_X86_32 with the new
> meaning. Sorry, I don't have specific macros to detect x86_32 right now but it
> is supported by gcc.
I thought that the mongrel ABI was properly called "x32" .
Searching for x86_32 just seems to hit a bunch of confused people
actually meaning the regular boring 32-bit x86.
While they made an odd naming decision calling it "x32", calling it
something else than what it's actually called would be a disservice.
-- Lars Viklund | zao_at_[hidden]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk