From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id A4D4A3858D3C; Sat, 15 Jul 2023 19:39:04 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A4D4A3858D3C
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1689449944;
	bh=h5xF7yAEb7XpOo7i9Qy/UEz7nNHiMpRmF20THACTgsU=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=O59Jxgf0oiM0J+DyVYsxFGyVBzcKqyx3xSRGY9ur71Lyo3w5GTyot5wcreA+ZSKTa
	 LKBFmQnJuiWQKj47EnZDeOFWKMKoD90l46iu9k7FyNHLJER4ipeGkog8TfloG6W4iS
	 gsXb/VgRqfJ29Iw0m68U44BKxXY3EU3lYfezmido=
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/110653] Support std::stoi etc. without C99 APIs
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2023 19:39:04 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-110653-4-gYJotNvfN6@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-110653-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-110653-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D110653

--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #11)
> Yes, this works.

Great, thanks.

> hppa64-hpux does not have have strtof.=C2=A0 Could std::stof be implement=
ed using
> strtod in this case?

Maybe something like this:

--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/basic_string.h
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/basic_string.h
@@ -4153,6 +4153,25 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_CXX11
   inline float
   stof(const string& __str, size_t* __idx =3D 0)
   { return __gnu_cxx::__stoa(&std::strtof, "stof", __str.c_str(), __idx); }
+#else
+  inline float
+  stof(const string& __str, size_t* __idx =3D 0)
+  {
+    double __d =3D std::stod(__str, __idx);
+    if (__builtin_isfinite(__d))
+      {
+       double __abs_d =3D __builtin_fabs(__d);
+       if (__abs_d < __FLT_MIN__)
+         errno =3D ERANGE;
+       else if (__abs_d > __FLT_MAX__)
+         {
+           errno =3D ERANGE;
+           float __f =3D __builtin_huge_valf();
+           return __d > 0.0 ? __f : -__f;
+         }
+      }
+    return __d;
+  }
 #endif

 #if _GLIBCXX_USE_C99_STDLIB || _GLIBCXX_HAVE_STRTOLD


> I'm thinking a test to check the presence and maybe compliance of these
> routines might be good.

We have some:
testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/numeric_conversions/char/stof.cc
testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/numeric_conversions/char/stold.cc

But they depend on { dg-require-string-conversions "" } which is only true =
if
we have the full set of them:

    return [check_v3_target_prop_cached et_string_conversions {
        set cond "_GLIBCXX_USE_C99_STDIO && _GLIBCXX_USE_C99_STDLIB"
        set cond "$cond && _GLIBCXX_USE_C99_WCHAR"
        set cond "$cond && !defined _GLIBCXX_HAVE_BROKEN_VSWPRINTF"
        return [v3_check_preprocessor_condition string_conversions $cond]
    }]=