On Feb 12, 2011, at 2:03 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: > Thanks! I used this to build some more google code and ran into a > couple more missing builtins from <complex>. Here's a patch that adds > those too, which I've also attached to your bug. > > On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:53 AM, John Bytheway <[email protected]> wrote: >> The attached patch adds support for the builtins defined in gcc 4.4's >> <cmath> header in C++0x mode. There is ample opportunity for error in >> this patch, but it's been checked by both me and Marius Wachtler. See >> >> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=9138 >> >> (I was asked to send the patch here after attaching it to the bug; this >> one corrects the error Marius noticed in the one attached to the bug.) >> >> Note that I've added builtins purely on the basis of error messages >> (either because their lack was indicated by an error, or because they >> were the "<foo>" version where the "<foo>f" and "<foo>l" versions >> appeared in errors). I haven't looked at the standards to see what >> functions really should exist. >> >> This work was inspired by >> <http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-dev/2011-February/013168.html> >> and related messages. >> >> John Bytheway >> >> _______________________________________________ >> cfe-commits mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits >> >> > <cxx0x_builtins.patch>_______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
Here's a boat-load of C++ complex transcendental tests that could be adapted to C99 complex: http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/libcxx/trunk/test/numerics/complex.number/complex.transcendentals/ -Howard _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
