[Cfp-interest] TS draft comments

[Jim Thomas]

On Jan 16, 2012, at 9:47 AM, Fred J. Tydeman wrote:

> 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.
> 

<stdio.h> support would also be required. Would that be acceptable for freestanding implementations?
-Jim

> 
> ---
> 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cfp-interest mailing list
> Cfp-interest at oakapple.net
> http://mailman.oakapple.net/mailman/listinfo/cfp-interest