[Cfp-interest] TS draft comments

[Fred J. Tydeman]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:42:55 -0500 Joel C. Salomon wrote:
>
>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?

Yes.


---
Fred J. Tydeman        Tydeman Consulting
tydeman at tybor.com      Testing, numerics, programming
+1 (775) 358-9748      Vice-chair of PL22.11 (ANSI "C")
Sample C99+FPCE tests: http://www.tybor.com
Savers sleep well, investors eat well, spenders work forever.