This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
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: 3dw4rd at verizon dot net
- Cc: libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:14:55 +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>
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?
Thanks,
Paolo.
PS: for the immediate needs of <random> we can use ext/numeric_traits.h