This is the mail archive of the gcc@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]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Invalid code in <limits>

From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, Phil Edwards <phil at jaj dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:48:57 -0800
Subject: Re: Invalid code in <limits>
References: <49200000.1043862210@warlock.codesourcery.com> <m3n0lju8y7.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>

On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 07:06:40PM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> | Using, say, CPP macros to implement limits would let us get there
> | easily.  We already *do* use CPP macros in <limits> (like
> | __FLT_MIN_EXP__); adding a few more is no big deal.
> 
> We have been through this before, it proved not to work very well.
> Until RTH kindly offered help.

It's indeed not hard to create builtin CPP macros for the
instances in libstdc++ right now.

That said, I do think it's important to be able to handle
__builtin_inf and __builtin_nan anywhere regular fp 
constants are valid, *and* that the final generated code
considers them constants, as opposed to runtime initialization.

r~

References:
- Re: Invalid code in <limits>
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: Invalid code in <limits>
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis

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