This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [v3] c++0x std::ratio implementation

From: "Chris Fairles" <chris dot fairles at gmail dot com>
To: "Paolo Carlini" <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, libstdc++ <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 10:15:29 -0400
Subject: Re: [v3] c++0x std::ratio implementation
References: <fac6bb500806291322i478b995epe6eee134fcec2d8d@mail.gmail.com> <fac6bb500807040531w3ccaff40w7873f176d0d14a72@mail.gmail.com> <28816523.1215177502746.JavaMail.oracle@acsmt302.oracle.com>

On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 9:18 AM, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>> Updated patch.
>
> Thanks. I'm looking into it. Note that, currently at least, we cannot assume <cstdint> to be non-trivial on all the platforms supported by GCC, that is, std::intmax_t may well be unavailable. The code and the tests require guards...

With something like __GLIBCXX_HAS_STDINT_H? Or, even if stdint.h is
defined, its still not guaranteed to have intmax_t? But if it doesn't,
won't including cstdint give a compiler error (due to "using
::intmax_t)?

Can we assume that if INTMAX_MAX is defined, then intmax_t is available?

>
> Paolo.
>
>

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [v3] c++0x std::ratio implementation
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [v3] c++0x std::ratio implementation
  - From: Paolo Carlini

References:
- Re: [v3] c++0x std::ratio implementation
  - From: Chris Fairles
- Re: [v3] c++0x std::ratio implementation
  - From: Paolo Carlini

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]