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: [v3] c++0x std::ratio implementation

From: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
To: Chris Fairles <chris dot fairles at gmail dot com>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, libstdc++ <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 12:10:45 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: [v3] c++0x std::ratio implementation
Accept-language: en-US
References: <fac6bb500806291322i478b995epe6eee134fcec2d8d@mail.gmail.com> <fac6bb500807040531w3ccaff40w7873f176d0d14a72@mail.gmail.com> <28816523.1215177502746.JavaMail.oracle@acsmt302.oracle.com> <fac6bb500807040715y429d9719y5705239a1e9bffd4@mail.gmail.com> <11568770.1215181570649.JavaMail.oracle@acsmt302.oracle.com> <fac6bb500807040924n6be88dd4qdbeb80d6992de55f@mail.gmail.com>

> Updated patch. Formatting, use _GLIBCXX_USE_C99_STDINT_TR1,
> renamed template params.

Thanks. I'm finishing regtesting the patch + some minor local tweaks. While I do that, can you please double check that ratio_subtract is OK when _R2::num == INTMAX_MIN? I see an unconditional unary minus which in principle could overflow...

Thanks,
Paolo.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [v3] c++0x std::ratio implementation
  - From: Chris Fairles

References:
- Re: [v3] c++0x std::ratio implementation
  - From: Chris Fairles
- Re: [v3] c++0x std::ratio implementation
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [v3] c++0x std::ratio implementation
  - From: Chris Fairles
- Re: [v3] c++0x std::ratio implementation
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [v3] c++0x std::ratio implementation
  - From: Chris Fairles

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