This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: "big" integer constants
- From: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
- To: Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net>
- Cc: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 23:06:34 +0100
- Subject: Re: "big" integer constants
- References: <201110290106.p9T16wfS018325@greed.delorie.com> <4EAB5AAE.email@example.com> <201110290153.p9T1rf0f020227@greed.delorie.com> <4EAB86FF.firstname.lastname@example.org> <201110290501.p9T51oN8009838@greed.delorie.com> <4F03CBFE.email@example.com>
Sorry this took so long. I got busy, then the holidays...I'm not super happy with the patch. First, I'm not at all sure we can
safely assume _GLIBCXX_USE_C99_STDINT_TR1 is always defined here,
because otherwise the <cstdint> boils down to nothing and your patch
doesn't work. Please double check.
I just changed some big numbers to
No new testcases. Everything works.
There may have been things beyond the range of the test cases I was
trying to capture but I'm not going to work on that right now.
Besides these boring configury issues, I don't like the idea of using
the max of uint16_t for an unsigned int variable. Maybe it happens to
work on the actual targets supported now, but why not using directly an
uint16_t variable? In any case, if uint16_t isn't actually available per
the above issue, n or m > n instances of it are equally wrong ;)