From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 56100 invoked by alias); 29 Nov 2017 18:04:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 56089 invoked by uid 89); 29 Nov 2017 18:04:51 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KB_WAM_FROM_NAME_SINGLEWORD,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=compliant X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 18:04:50 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14D68C0587C0; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 18:04:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn04.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.4]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C71B5C1A1; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 18:04:48 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [RFC v2][2/2] Target FP: Make use of MPFR if available To: Ulrich Weigand , John Baldwin References: <20171129175536.A27B8D80320@oc3748833570.ibm.com> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 18:04:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20171129175536.A27B8D80320@oc3748833570.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2017-11/txt/msg00786.txt.bz2 On 11/29/2017 05:55 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > John Baldwin wrote: > >> FreeBSD's stdint.h uses _SYS_STDINT_H_ as it's include guard for , >> so this check doesn't work. Perhaps GDB's sources should just define >> MPFR_USE_INTMAX_T explicitly after ensuring is included? That >> would seem to be the most portable approach and I think is what the >> "Portable software should not rely on these tests" implies. > > I agree. GDB now requires C++11, which always has intmax_t, so it should > be fine to simply always require this. And even if a compiler isn't compliant for some reason, we'd get a stdint.h replacement via gnulib that provides intmax_t. Thanks, Pedro Alves