From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18862 invoked by alias); 13 Feb 2009 15:39:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 18121 invoked by uid 48); 13 Feb 2009 15:38:53 -0000 Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:39:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20090213153853.18120.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug libstdc++/39168] Incorrect interpretation of CHAR_MAX inside grouping string in monetary and numeric facets. In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "tsyvarev at ispras dot ru" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-02/txt/msg01205.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #15 from tsyvarev at ispras dot ru 2009-02-13 15:38 ------- (In reply to comment #14) > If I understand correctly, in order to implement the POSIX behavior for C++, > assuming we want it, the Standard should be clarified to explain that values <= > 0 or CHAR_MAX are different in that do no admit repetitions, thus saying > explicitly that such group is effectively the last, arbitrarily long, one. Yes, I meen exactly this. Also, current implementation follows this strategy - accroding to the tests, and according to it's source code. So it is strange for me, that the standard for num_get<>::do_get() say, that only string() is indicator of no grouping at all. While string(1,-1) and string(1,CHAR_MAX) also force number representation to have only one group. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39168