Whats wrong with "double_t"?
Excessive template magic is just confusing. If you compile for a embedded platform there is a platform specific header anyway where you would put #define BIGGEST_FLOAT_TYPE double" or something.
Excessive template magic is just confusing. If you compile for a embedded platform there is a platform specific header anyway where you would put #define BIGGEST_FLOAT_TYPE double" or something.
(Entertainingly, all this template machinery doesn't seem to detect this issue, making it a bit of a waste of time)
[1] https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/Reserved-...
/checks the spec
Hmm, a type that might be like double or might be like long double or might be implementation defined, depending on a "FLT_EVAL_METHOD", knowing that double and long double still are also implementation defined
What problem does double_t even solve then?
My point is, if IEEE 754 is a problem, you probably need to check things yourself anyway and can't trust whoever wrote numerical_limits at the chip manufacturer and that it applies to your platform without e.g. adding interrupt handlers etc. So you can't trust this template anyways.