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]

Re: PATCH: Use __LONG_LONG_MAX__ if LONG_LONG_MIN etc are not available

To: rittle at labs dot mot dot com
Subject: Re: PATCH: Use __LONG_LONG_MAX__ if LONG_LONG_MIN etc are not available
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at codesourcery dot com>
Date: 31 Jul 2001 21:52:29 +0200
Cc: libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
References: <200107311626.f6VGQgj40774@latour.rsch.comm.mot.com> <200107311934.f6VJY9r40802@latour.rsch.comm.mot.com>

Loren James Rittle <rittle@latour.rsch.comm.mot.com> writes:

| This is the path of logic which was known to fix the current bootstrap
| problem on armv4l-*-linux-gnu but I haven't retested it there myself.

Thanks for all, Loren.

The correct behaviour of src/gen-num-limits.cc is so tied to GCC (and
I expect increasing coupling when I'll check in patches to finish
proper numeric_limits<> support) that I don't think it hurts to use
unconditionally __LONG_LONG_MAX__.

-- Gaby
CodeSourcery, LLC                       http://www.codesourcery.com

References:
- PATCH: Use __LONG_LONG_MAX__ if LONG_LONG_MIN etc are not available
  - From: Loren James Rittle
- Re: PATCH: Use __LONG_LONG_MAX__ if LONG_LONG_MIN etc are not available
  - From: Loren James Rittle

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