This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug libstdc++/31836] [4.3 Regression] FAIL: 27_io/basic_istream/extractors_arithmetic/char/12.cc execution test
- From: "dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 12 May 2007 01:23:27 -0000
- Subject: [Bug libstdc++/31836] [4.3 Regression] FAIL: 27_io/basic_istream/extractors_arithmetic/char/12.cc execution test
- References: <bug-31836-276@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #27 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-05-12 02:23 -------
Subject: Re: [4.3 Regression] FAIL:
27_io/basic_istream/extractors_arithmetic/char/12.cc execution test
> An additional remark on hppa: a *theoretical* possibility is that on hppa
> strtold (or sscanf), even if infinities are available, doesn't return an
> infinity in case of input overflow. As far as I know, that is strictly mandated
> only in C99. In that case, we could strengthen the check on
> __LDBL_HAS_INFINITY__ to one on _GLIBCXX_USE_C99, for example.
That's it. From the manpage:
If the correct value would cause overflow, positive _LDBL_MAX or
negative _LDBL_NMAX is returned (according to the sign of the value),
and errno is set to ERANGE. The __LDBL_MAX and __LDBL_NMAX macros are
provided to assist in checking the return values against _LDBL_MAX and
_LDBL_NMAX.
If the correct value would cause underflow, _ZERO is returned and
errno is set to ERANGE.
So, I guess we have to check errno.
Dave
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31836