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

From: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
To: libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:06:48 +0100
Subject: Re: Another go at max_digits10 and lowest() to numeric_limits for C++-0x
References: <1193997100.7131.1267105625894.JavaMail.root@vms183.mailsrvcs.net> <4B8693EF.1080705@oracle.com> <206fcf961002250856yef898f9k2c125c205a10fe39@mail.gmail.com>

On 02/25/2010 05:56 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> 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.
>   
Great. Indeed I was skimming through the WP and was (humbly) coming to
the same conclusion.

Thus, I'm applying the below.

Thanks,
Paolo.

///////////////////

Attachment: patch_limits_a
Description: Text document

References:
- Another go at max_digits10 and lowest() to numeric_limits for C++-0x
  - From: 3dw4rd
- Re: Another go at max_digits10 and lowest() to numeric_limits for C++-0x
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: Another go at max_digits10 and lowest() to numeric_limits for C++-0x
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis

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