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: [RFA] libstdc++/22203, aka PowerPC vsnumeric_limits<integer>::traps

From: Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>
To: libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
Cc: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 17:30:15 -0600
Subject: Re: [RFA] libstdc++/22203, aka PowerPC vsnumeric_limits<integer>::traps
References: <436A598F.2040007@suse.de><m3ll00cr01.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>

> If PPC claims integer arithmetic does not trap then we do need
> *testcases* to go with the patch.  The snipped provided in the PR does
> not test anything.  We do need actual program that tests that the
> operations don't trap.  With that modification, the patch is OK.

Well, it would certainly be nice to test this, but please note there
are no signal or traps testing for numeric_limits presently.

Maybe Mr. Pinski has a clever idea about how to test this, since he
must have run into something to find it?

-benjamin

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [RFA] libstdc++/22203, aka PowerPC vsnumeric_limits<integer>::traps
  - From: Benjamin Kosnik
- Re: [RFA] libstdc++/22203, aka PowerPC vs numeric_limits<integer>::traps
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis

References:
- [RFA] libstdc++/22203, aka PowerPC vs numeric_limits<integer>::traps
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [RFA] libstdc++/22203, aka PowerPC vs numeric_limits<integer>::traps
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis

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