This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ 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: [PATCH] Fix libstdc++/5045 (take3)

From: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at unitus dot it>
To: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at unitus dot it>, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
Cc: bkoz at redhat dot com, gdr at codesourcery dot com
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 08:22:05 +0100
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix libstdc++/5045 (take3)
References: <3C151CAF.FE77F24B@unitus.it> <3C1525E0.AD99C6EA@unitus.it> <3C154296.8401F9A0@unitus.it>

Please scratch my last message and the corresponding "improvement" :(
In fact 64 bit unsigned integers are not special at all: max num digits == digits10 + 1 for them
too. They are "special" only in that the current value of digits10 in std_limits.h is the only one
correct (as was pointed out by Philip right from the beginning of libstdc++/5045 trail)

Therefore the simpler "take3" was perfectly ok:

    http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2001-12/msg00161.html


This digits10 issue is quite tricky, isn't it?

Cheers,
Paolo.

References:
- [PATCH] Fix libstdc++/5045 (take2)
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- [PATCH] Fix libstdc++/5045 (take3)
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [PATCH] Fix libstdc++/5045 (take3)
  - From: Paolo Carlini

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