[Cfp-interest] TS draft comments

[Joel C. Salomon]

On 01/15/2012 10:57 AM, Jim Thomas wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2012, at 10:45 PM, Fred J. Tydeman wrote:
>> 1. Conformance
>> Why "hosted"?  Why not also embedded?
> 
> C11 doesn't mention embedded systems. What are you referring to?

Is there a way to say that a freestanding implementation can conform if
it has certain bits normally included in a hosted implementation?
(E.g., freestanding + <fenv.h> + <math.h> + ....)

I understand that the C committee won't want to create new subsets of
the Standard, but this project is creating an extension to the Standard,
so why not define the extension for freestanding implementations as well
as hosted ones?  (There's nothing stopping an extended freestanding
implementation from including the CFP binding as an extension without
such a definition, but then they can't claim, "we support IEC 60559:2011
per WG14 TS 00000".)

Fred, is that what you meant?

--Joel