On 17/12/2018 20:45, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 06:08:28PM +0000, Ramsay Jones wrote:
>> On 17/12/2018 00:02, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote:
>>> Some types have already their TYPE/SIZEOF/MAX macros.
>>> These patches add them for the missing types: ptrdiff,
>>> int{ptr,max,64,32,16,8}_t and their unsigned version.
> ...
>>> Change since v3:
>>> * SCHAR must refer to schar_ctype, not the plain char_ctype
>>> * remove now unneeded #ifdefery to initialize int32_t
>>> * add predefine for __CHAR_UNSIGNED__
>>> * add predefine for __{WCHAR,WINT}_MIN__
>>>
>>> To make clearer what changed since v3, only the delta and new
>>> patches are posted.
>>
>> Ah, sorry Luc, but I didn't manage to do much testing this
>> weekend after all (_many_ higher priority interrupts!).
>
> No problem, really.
>
>> I did manage _some_ testing, first with the v3 patches based
>> on the 'master' branch from a couple of days ago. Then I saw
>> the 'master' branch gained some additional patches, so I rebased
>> the v3 patches on top (of 'master' @ 5532461), which had a
>> minor text conflict (which was automatically resolved by rebase).
>
> Ah OK :)
> I purposely not rebase the different versions of a series in
> its final stages to not change the context, be distracted by
> unrelated changes when testing but well ... :)
Indeed, but I like to test master + dev (it saves me time, generally),
and if I notice a regression it is quite simple to 'bisect' (or simply
drop back to master).
>> So, I will add these on top tonight ... (but I still have some
>> other things I need to do as well :( ).
>
> No worries.
>
>> So, with the limited testing of v3, I noticed that (on Linux) the
>> gcc '-mx32' mode differed from sparse in the size of a 'long double',
>> which was 16 on gcc and 12 on sparse.
>
> Mmmm yes, it wasn't intended.
>
>> As previously noted, on cygwin WCHAR is an 'unsigned short'.
>
> Yes, in fact kinda I expected a patch from you for it because I
> don't have such platform on hand to test it. But no problem I can
> just add this for WCHAR.
Yep, I will happily do so (once it is in master). ;-)
>
>> Also, the
>> gcc '-mx32' mode on cygwin is useless (probably unsupported/not defined).
>> Indeed, the '-mx32' mode on Linux requires kernel support, which the
>> fedora project are talking about removing soon. (apparently, nobody
>> uses it anyway!).
>
> Yes, I think also that -mx32 on cygwin is useless.
> To be honest, the whole x86-x32 really annoys me because:
> * it creates lots of complications for something that is seldom used
> * worse, while I know that some people are working on it, it also
> looks as it is still broken in a lot of context
> * Debian's (unofficial port) install images for it are still broken
> for me (it starts but network is never detected) and are dated
> from 2015-2016.
> So, I don't want to spend/waste much time on it.
Yep, I agree.
>> I will try to get to this testing soon. (but I would not be unhappy
>> if you pushed this out, as it stands, and go 'incremental' with any
>> additional 'fixes'). :-D
>
> Yes, it's was essentially my intention and why I only posted a delta
> for -v4.
Great! BTW, I noticed a typo in one commit message for patch titled
'add predefined macros for [u]int32_t', namely s/[u]loing/[u]long/.
Also, in the patch titled 'fix the size of long double', I think
that you meant s/The odd on here/The odd one here/?
ATB,
Ramsay Jones
