I added tgmath.h last year, which includes generic support for all non-complex math functions. As complex.h is optional in C11 and not included with tinycc, this should be fine.
I think any added C11 features should be welcome, C2X features are secondary, imo unless it is low-hanging fruit and easy to implement. On constexpr, I find it interesting for tinycc as it minimizes generated code - efficiency gains are not that important. Mutable types like in c++ are useful, although it is possible to write functional style code instead. I haven't looked at the proposal yet, though. -tyge On Sun, 17 Oct 2021 at 11:03, Christian Jullien <eli...@orange.fr> wrote: > AFAIK, all stuff for complex is missing and the generic math macros are > not implemented > > > > The type-generic macros are as follows: > > > > fabs fabsf fabs fabsl cabsf cabs cabsl > > exp expf exp expl cexpf cexp cexpl > > log logf log logl clogf clog > clogl > > pow powf pow powl cpowf cpow cpowl > > sqrt sqrtf sqrt sqrtl csqrtf csqrt csqrtl > > sin sinf sin sinl csinf > csin csinl > > cos cosf cos cosl ccosf ccos ccosl > > tan tanf tan tanl ctanf ctan ctanl > > asin asinf asin asinl casinf casin casinl > > acos acosf acos acosl cacosf cacos cacosl > > atan atanf atan atanl catanf catan catanl > > sinh sinhf sinh sinhl csinhf csinh csinhl > > cosh coshf cosh coshl ccoshf ccosh ccoshl > > tanh tanhf tanh tanhl ctanhf ctanh ctanhl > > asinh asinhf asinh asinhl casinhf casinh casinhl > > acosh acoshf acosh acoshl cacoshf cacosh cacoshl > > atanh atanhf atanh atanhl catanhf catanh catanhl > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis= > orange...@nongnu.org] On Behalf Of Elijah Stone > Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2021 01:09 > To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org > Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Opinions on constexpr being added to C2X? > > > > Atomics are here now; I think the only thing missing is > wide-chars/strings, no? > > > > I have a patch to support a number of c11/c2x features (including > widestrings), but the last time I posted it on this list I was met with > crickets, so I am not sure what else to do with it (aside from continuing > to use it for myself). > > > > -E > > > > On Thu, 14 Oct 2021, Christian Jullien wrote: > > > > > > > > I’m big fan of constexpr in C++ that allows compile time computations > and more code elimination. I probably overuse constexpr in my code. > > > > > > I’m not sure that the nature of tcc will find a big impact with > constexpr support. > > > > > > There are many missing C11 features that should be handled before this > one. > > > > > > > > > > > > M2c > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Tinycc-devel > > > [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org] On Behalf Of > > > Marcus Johnson > > > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2021 10:36 > > > To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org > > > Subject: [Tinycc-devel] Opinions on constexpr being added to C2X? > > > > > > > > > > > > There's a new proposal to add it, and the standard is especially > interested in hearing from small compiler devs their opinions on such a > feature. > > > > > > http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2851.pdf > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tinycc-devel mailing list > Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel >
_______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
