[Cfp-interest 2433] Re: HAS_SUBNORM paper

[Vincent Lefevre]

On 2022-05-15 18:53:36 -0700, Jim Thomas wrote:
> I think the strongest argument for not just removing the macros is
> that some code might depend on the macros. This suggests we
> shouldn’t make changes that might cause implementations to change
> their definitions of the macros, which the changes to the footnotes
> do.

These macros have been introduced only in C11. So their removal
should not affect portable code, intending to support no-so-old
compilers, and it may be better to remove them now rather than
trying to fix them and maybe introduce unnoticed bugs in programs
if implementations need to change their definitions.

Implementations could still provide such macros, but they would
just be regarded as non-portable extensions.

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent at vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)