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: Another go at max_digits10 and lowest() to numeric_limits for C++-0x


On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com> wrote:
> On 02/25/2010 02:47 PM, 3dw4rd@verizon.net wrote:
>> Greetings,
>>
>> 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...
>
> Gaby?

constexpr does not change mangling.  It only has a compile-time
semantics effect, e.g. where a function call can be used and what
happens.

>
> Thanks,
> Paolo.
>
> PS: for the immediate needs of <random> we can use ext/numeric_traits.h
>


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