It's supposed to tell you whether the target arch supports it. So it's definitely something the compiler knows better than the C library, which is why I didn't just work around this myself 😀
Clang may not be correct right now, but if that's true, (a) it's already lying to us through the other macro and (b) it's still in a better position to know the truth. On Sep 15, 2017 10:12, "Pirama Arumuga Nainar via Phabricator" < revi...@reviews.llvm.org> wrote: pirama added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D37302#871794, @joerg wrote: > So what about targets that don't support subnormals? I'm moderately sure ARM falls into this category given the right phase of the moon. Clang defines `__FLT_HAS_DENORM__` and friends unconditionally, so I thought we could do this for `FLT_HAS_SUBNORM` as well, considering that gcc did the same. But that might be misleading because gcc's float.h was just for the target of that particular gcc build. Am I right to understand that `__FLT_HAS_DENORM__` signifies *compiler* support for denorms as opposed to support on the *platforms* supported? If so, it might support our alternative consideration of defining these macros in the bionic/libc headers for Android (and rely on the include_next similar to Windows and Darwin). https://reviews.llvm.org/D37302
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
