Re: [PATCH v0 0/2] Add C23 stdbit.h functions

Sorry for the delay. I got back to Corrina's comment:

> No, they are not.  Target was Cygwin with its own limits.h, but even in
> newlib's limits.h, these WIDTH macros are not defined.  Incidentally,
> they are not defined anywhere in the newlib-cygwin repo.  If this works
> for you, you're probably overloading the newlib headers with rtems
> headers.

RTEMS does indeed have its own limits.h. And it must be aligned with  C23.

And Cygwin has its own limits.h which has not been updated to have any of
the new C23 constants. Four show up in compiler error messages building
the stdbit code.

https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/header/limits.html

The stdbit.h addition needs a limits.h with the C23 constants.

Can those be added to the Cygwin limits.h? Then we can proceed with
the stdbit.h addition.

Thanks.

--joel



On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 3:55 PM Jeff Johnston <[email protected]> wrote:

> Regarding ELIX, ELIX 1 is the smallest subset of the library and ELIX 4,
> or not specifying ELIX, is everything.  In general, adding new
> shared functions should go in ELIX 4 as the original ELIX documentation
> wouldn't have categorized the new functions.
>
> I don't know if anyone is currently using the ELIX settings.
>
> -- Jeff J.
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 4:59 AM Corinna Vinschen <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Joel,
>>
>> On Mar 21 18:52, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>> > Thanks. I finally aligned all the autotools versions with your changes.
>> >
>> > It all built for me to target sparc-rtems7.
>> >
>> > You mentioned a problem compiling these earlier. What target was that? I
>> > think all the
>> > XXX_WIDTH constants used are in limits.h.
>>
>> No, they are not.  Target was Cygwin with its own limits.h, but even in
>> newlib's limits.h, these WIDTH macros are not defined.  Incidentally,
>> they are not defined anywhere in the newlib-cygwin repo.  If this works
>> for you, you're probably overloading the newlib headers with rtems
>> headers.
>>
>> > And is there any organization behind ELIX and ELIX_LEVEL anymore? Is 3
>> > everything or some restricted subset. We would like them on RTEMS and I
>> > assume we would be a more restricted profile since we are single
>> process.
>>
>> Actually, I don't know.  I thought we're supposed to maintain this
>> stuff.
>>
>> Jeff?
>>
>> If this isn't important anymore, fine with me, it just complicates
>> the configury anyway ;)
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Corinna
>>
>>