This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: Another go at max_digits10 and lowest() to numeric_limits for C++-0x
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Paolo Carlini <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 02/25/2010 02:47 PM, email@example.com wrote:
>> Here is another go at adding max_digits10 and lowest() to numeric_limits for C++-0x.
>> ? The logic and tests are simpler.
>> ? The definitions for max_digits10 are in src/limits.c
>> ? The config/.../gnu.ver was tweaked after a struggle.
>> The patch bootstraps and regtests (including ABI) on x86_64-linux.
> Thanks. Looks pretty good to me, I was about to apply it with minor
> fixes (eg, __numeric_limits_base::max_digits10 must be also exported
> otherwise taking the address of the primary template constant doesn't work).
> I have only a doubt, I'd like to ask Gaby about that: when we'll get
> constexpr what will happen to the limits exports, in particular the
> mangling? Because if something will be different, and I'm afraid it
> will, adding more stuff to limits now will just make that work more
> difficult, we can as well wait a bit more...
constexpr does not change mangling. It only has a compile-time
semantics effect, e.g. where a function call can be used and what
> PS: for the immediate needs of <random> we can use ext/numeric_traits.h