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: [PATCH, libstdc++/61166] overflow when parse number in std::duration operator""


On 14 May 2014 15:36, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 14 May 2014 15:25, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
>> But in keeping with, say, our extension type traits and such maybe i should
>> uglify value as well.
>
> No, just derive from std::integral_constant and you get value "for free".
>
> You already use integral_constant in that file, so the name "value" is
> already used.

That also has the advantage that _Digit<B, 'f'> and _Digit<B, 'F'>
share the same base class, so you don't end up with two different
static members with the same value (and if you make __valid a typedef
as I suggested you don't have any static members for that either).

Do we really need _Digit::value to be unsigned long long, or is it
only the results in _Power_help and _Number_help that need to be
64-bit?


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