On Thu, 14 Nov 2024, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Should DEC64X_SUBNORMAL_MIN/DEC64X_TRUE_MIN macros be defined at all and if > yes, under the same conditions as the rest? > C23 only talks about *_TRUE_MIN, not about *_SUBNORMAL_MIN.
So there should be no DEC64X_SUBNORMAL_MIN (but should be DEC64X_TRUE_MIN, given __STDC_WANT_IEC_60559_TYPES_EXT__). > Shouldn't the DEC32_MANT_DIG etc. macros also be enabled if just > __STDC_WANT_IEC_60559_TYPES_EXT__ is defined and no C23? No, since __STDC_WANT_IEC_60559_TYPES_EXT__ only relates to _DecimalN for N not 32, 64 or 128. and _DecimalNx; it doesn't have anything to do with _Decimal32, _Decimal64 or _Decimal128 (beyond a few encoding conversion functions that aren't in the main body of the standard at all). Before C23, _Decimal32, _Decimal64 and _Decimal128 were in TR 24732:2009 (__STDC_WANT_DEC_FP__) and TS 18661-2 (__STDC_WANT_IEC_60559_DFP_EXT__); the other types, but not those three, were in TS 18661-3 (__STDC_WANT_IEC_60559_TYPES_EXT__). -- Joseph S. Myers josmy...@redhat.com
