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: Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>
Cc: libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org, gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 18:40:22 -0600
Subject: Re: [RFA] libstdc++/22203, aka PowerPC vsnumeric_limits<integer>::traps
References: <436A598F.2040007@suse.de><m3ll00cr01.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net><20051109173015.806a5720.bkoz@redhat.com>

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

Find test attached, thanks Paolo/Ulrich W. (Let's see what else breaks!)

If this is done, we should split out the existing numeric_limits tests as well.

-benjamin

Attachment: 22203.cc
Description: Text document

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

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
- Re: [RFA] libstdc++/22203, aka PowerPC vsnumeric_limits<integer>::traps
  - From: Benjamin Kosnik

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