* [Bug libstdc++/40856] numeric_limits not specialized for __int128_t or __uint128_t
[not found] <bug-40856-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2011-09-19 11:43 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2011-09-19 12:17 ` paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com @ 2011-09-19 11:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40856
--- Comment #7 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2011-09-19 11:05:10 UTC ---
But see: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg01048.html. Thus, for the
time being, I'm going to use __int128_t and __uint128_t in the implementation
details: using the latter to define specializations instead of __int128 and
unsigned __int128 should be undetectable from the user point of view.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug libstdc++/40856] numeric_limits not specialized for __int128_t or __uint128_t
[not found] <bug-40856-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2011-09-19 11:43 ` [Bug libstdc++/40856] numeric_limits not specialized for __int128_t or __uint128_t paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
@ 2011-09-19 12:17 ` paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-09-19 12:21 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
` (9 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: paolo at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-09-19 12:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40856
--- Comment #8 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org <paolo at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-09-19 11:52:54 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Mon Sep 19 11:52:49 2011
New Revision: 178969
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=178969
Log:
2011-09-19 Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com>
PR libstdc++/40856
* include/std/limits (numeric_limits<__int128_t>,
numeric_limits<__uint128_t>): Add.
* src/limits.cc:Define.
* config/abi/pre/gnu.ver: Export.
* include/ext/typelist.h (_GLIBCXX_TYPELIST_CHAIN16, 20): Add.
* testsuite/util/testsuite_common_types.h (integral_types_gnu): Add
(limits_tl): Use it.
* testsuite/18_support/numeric_limits/requirements/
constexpr_functions.cc: Likewise.
* testsuite/18_support/numeric_limits/40856.cc: New.
* testsuite/18_support/numeric_limits/dr559.cc: Extend.
* testsuite/18_support/numeric_limits/lowest.cc: Likewise.
* testsuite/18_support/numeric_limits/max_digits10.cc: Likewise.
* testsuite/29_atomics/atomic/cons/assign_neg.cc: Adjust dg-error
line numbers.
* testsuite/29_atomics/atomic/cons/copy_neg.cc: Likewise.
* testsuite/29_atomics/atomic_integral/cons/assign_neg.cc: Likewise.
* testsuite/29_atomics/atomic_integral/cons/copy_neg.cc: Likewise.
* testsuite/29_atomics/atomic_integral/operators/bitwise_neg.cc:
Likewise.
* testsuite/29_atomics/atomic_integral/operators/decrement_neg.cc:
Likewise.
* testsuite/29_atomics/atomic_integral/operators/increment_neg.cc:
Likewise.
Added:
trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/18_support/numeric_limits/40856.cc
Modified:
trunk/libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog
trunk/libstdc++-v3/config/abi/pre/gnu.ver
trunk/libstdc++-v3/include/ext/typelist.h
trunk/libstdc++-v3/include/std/limits
trunk/libstdc++-v3/src/limits.cc
trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/18_support/numeric_limits/dr559.cc
trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/18_support/numeric_limits/lowest.cc
trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/18_support/numeric_limits/max_digits10.cc
trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/18_support/numeric_limits/requirements/constexpr_functions.cc
trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/29_atomics/atomic/cons/assign_neg.cc
trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/29_atomics/atomic/cons/copy_neg.cc
trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/29_atomics/atomic_integral/cons/assign_neg.cc
trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/29_atomics/atomic_integral/cons/copy_neg.cc
trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/29_atomics/atomic_integral/operators/bitwise_neg.cc
trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/29_atomics/atomic_integral/operators/decrement_neg.cc
trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/29_atomics/atomic_integral/operators/increment_neg.cc
trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/util/testsuite_common_types.h
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug libstdc++/40856] numeric_limits not specialized for __int128_t or __uint128_t
[not found] <bug-40856-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2011-09-19 11:43 ` [Bug libstdc++/40856] numeric_limits not specialized for __int128_t or __uint128_t paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2011-09-19 12:17 ` paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-09-19 12:21 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2012-10-22 12:21 ` zerotype at yahoo dot com
` (8 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com @ 2011-09-19 12:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40856
Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2011-09-19 11:54:59 UTC ---
Done.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug libstdc++/40856] numeric_limits not specialized for __int128_t or __uint128_t
[not found] <bug-40856-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2011-09-19 12:21 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
@ 2012-10-22 12:21 ` zerotype at yahoo dot com
2012-10-22 12:42 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: zerotype at yahoo dot com @ 2012-10-22 12:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40856
zerotype at yahoo dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |zerotype at yahoo dot com
--- Comment #10 from zerotype at yahoo dot com 2012-10-22 12:21:22 UTC ---
Are there any plans to backport this fix to any versions earlier than 4.7?
Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, which only has version 4.6, is likely to be around for quite
a long time due to its support lifespan.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug libstdc++/40856] numeric_limits not specialized for __int128_t or __uint128_t
[not found] <bug-40856-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2012-10-22 12:21 ` zerotype at yahoo dot com
@ 2012-10-22 12:42 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-25 20:12 ` john.salmon at deshaw dot com
` (6 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-10-22 12:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40856
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-10-22 12:41:32 UTC ---
That is not possible, it requires new exports from a shared library, which
isn't possible without backporting also all other symbols added to libstdc++.so
for GCC 4.7.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug libstdc++/40856] numeric_limits not specialized for __int128_t or __uint128_t
[not found] <bug-40856-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2012-10-22 12:42 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-10-25 20:12 ` john.salmon at deshaw dot com
2012-10-25 20:24 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: john.salmon at deshaw dot com @ 2012-10-25 20:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40856
John Salmon <john.salmon at deshaw dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED |
--- Comment #12 from John Salmon <john.salmon at deshaw dot com> 2012-10-25 20:12:14 UTC ---
Somewhere along the way, the specializations for this bug and for some
related type_traits (make_signed, make_unsigned, is_integral) were
conditionalized with:
#if !defined(__STRICT_ANSI__) && defined(_GLIBCXX_USE_INT128)
I think the STRICT_ANSI condition is a mistake. It has always been
the case that the availability of the __[u]int128_t types has been
independent of the value of __STRICT_ANSI__. Similarly, the
specializations of numeric_limits and type_traits should be present
regardless of whether __STRICT_ANSI__ is in effect.
The check for defined(_GLIBXX_USE_INT128) should be both necessary and
sufficient.
If I can declare a variable of a non-standard extension-type with some
compiler flags in effect, e.g., -std=c++11, then I should also be able
to get a sensible answer from std::numeric_limits and <type_traits>
with the same compiler flags.
This code should produce the same results with -std=g++11 and -std=c++11:
drdlogin0039$ cat strict128.cpp
#include <type_traits>
#include <limits>
#include <iostream>
int main(int , char **){
__int128_t i;
std::cout << "is_specialized: " <<
std::numeric_limits<__int128_t>::is_specialized << "\n";
std::cout << "is_integral: " << std::is_integral<__int128_t>::value <<
"\n";
return 0;
}
drdlogin0039$ g++ -std=gnu++11 strict128.cpp && ./a.out
is_specialized: 1
is_integral: 1
drdlogin0039$ g++ -std=c++11 strict128.cpp && ./a.out
is_specialized: 0
is_integral: 0
drdlogin0039$
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug libstdc++/40856] numeric_limits not specialized for __int128_t or __uint128_t
[not found] <bug-40856-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2012-10-25 20:12 ` john.salmon at deshaw dot com
@ 2012-10-25 20:24 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-10-25 20:28 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
` (4 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: glisse at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-10-25 20:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40856
--- Comment #13 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-10-25 20:23:43 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> If I can declare a variable of a non-standard extension-type with some
> compiler flags in effect, e.g., -std=c++11, then I should also be able
> to get a sensible answer from std::numeric_limits and <type_traits>
> with the same compiler flags.
*If* that's what's wanted, defined(__SIZEOF_INT128__) is the right test
(_GLIBCXX_USE_INT128 could use it in its definition).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug libstdc++/40856] numeric_limits not specialized for __int128_t or __uint128_t
[not found] <bug-40856-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2012-10-25 20:24 ` glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-10-25 20:28 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2012-10-25 21:36 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
` (3 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com @ 2012-10-25 20:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40856
Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|paolo.carlini at oracle dot |unassigned at gcc dot
|com |gnu.org
--- Comment #14 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2012-10-25 20:28:30 UTC ---
I can't spend further time on this issue in the near future. If somebody wants
to tweak the condition which enables the specializations, please just post a
patch to the mailing list and ask for a review from one of the maintainers. I
have no strong opinion either way.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug libstdc++/40856] numeric_limits not specialized for __int128_t or __uint128_t
[not found] <bug-40856-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2012-10-25 20:28 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
@ 2012-10-25 21:36 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2012-10-25 21:40 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
` (2 subsequent siblings)
11 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com @ 2012-10-25 21:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40856
--- Comment #15 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2012-10-25 21:35:57 UTC ---
Ah, a final punctualization in terms of general philosophy: I *suspect* that
some people don't fully realize that the *default* mode is -std=gnu++98 *not*
-std=c++98, thus there is always the implicit assumption that people moving to
the new standard normally use -std=gnu++11, not -std=c++11, otherwise, even
without considering the special integer types at issue here, they will soon
miss quite a few gnu extension bits in many other areas. That's way, today,
restricting these still quite special interest specializations to the strict
mode still makes a lot of conservative sense to me. But, I repeat, I will not
object to patches tweaking the condition and positively reviewed by fellow
maintainers.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug libstdc++/40856] numeric_limits not specialized for __int128_t or __uint128_t
[not found] <bug-40856-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2012-10-25 21:36 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
@ 2012-10-25 21:40 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
2012-12-07 9:20 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-12-07 10:20 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
11 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com @ 2012-10-25 21:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40856
--- Comment #16 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2012-10-25 21:39:48 UTC ---
Of course I meant "restricting to the non-strict mode", you got the point.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug libstdc++/40856] numeric_limits not specialized for __int128_t or __uint128_t
[not found] <bug-40856-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2012-10-25 21:40 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
@ 2012-12-07 9:20 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-12-07 10:20 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
11 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-12-07 9:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40856
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.7.0 |---
--- Comment #17 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-12-07 09:19:52 UTC ---
Still not fixed, removing target milestone.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug libstdc++/40856] numeric_limits not specialized for __int128_t or __uint128_t
[not found] <bug-40856-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2012-12-07 9:20 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-12-07 10:20 ` paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
11 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com @ 2012-12-07 10:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40856
Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|REOPENED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
--- Comment #18 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2012-12-07 10:20:26 UTC ---
Was fixed for 4.7.0.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/40856] numeric_limits not specialized for __int128_t or __uint128_t
2009-07-25 15:02 [Bug libstdc++/40856] New: " john dot salmon at deshaw dot com
@ 2009-07-26 9:26 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
2009-12-17 12:09 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
` (5 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com @ 2009-07-26 9:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-07-26 09:26 -------
Certainly not a bug, at most an enhancement: in the current and future C++
Standards there is no mention of such types, of course.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40856
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug libstdc++/40856] numeric_limits not specialized for __int128_t or __uint128_t
2009-07-25 15:02 [Bug libstdc++/40856] New: " john dot salmon at deshaw dot com
2009-07-26 9:26 ` [Bug libstdc++/40856] " paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
@ 2009-12-17 12:09 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
2009-12-17 12:10 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
` (4 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com @ 2009-12-17 12:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-17 12:09 -------
Yeah, the usual accessibility issue: in Santa Cruz I discussed that briefly
with Doug, he pretended to convince people that with extended SFINAE you can
implement trivially *any* introspection trait, then somebody (me too) pointed
out the accessibility issue and he said "bah, I don't care, accessibility is
"broken" n C++ anyway" ;)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40856
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug libstdc++/40856] numeric_limits not specialized for __int128_t or __uint128_t
2009-07-25 15:02 [Bug libstdc++/40856] New: " john dot salmon at deshaw dot com
2009-07-26 9:26 ` [Bug libstdc++/40856] " paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
2009-12-17 12:09 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
@ 2009-12-17 12:10 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
2010-02-18 14:10 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
` (3 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com @ 2009-12-17 12:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-12-17 12:10 -------
Sorry, the last comment is for 40497.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40856
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug libstdc++/40856] numeric_limits not specialized for __int128_t or __uint128_t
2009-07-25 15:02 [Bug libstdc++/40856] New: " john dot salmon at deshaw dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2009-12-17 12:10 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
@ 2010-02-18 14:10 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
2010-02-18 14:11 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
` (2 subsequent siblings)
6 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com @ 2010-02-18 14:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-02-18 14:10 -------
Created an attachment (id=19907)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19907&action=view)
Draft patch
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40856
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug libstdc++/40856] numeric_limits not specialized for __int128_t or __uint128_t
2009-07-25 15:02 [Bug libstdc++/40856] New: " john dot salmon at deshaw dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2010-02-18 14:10 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
@ 2010-02-18 14:11 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
2010-05-25 20:57 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
2010-05-25 21:04 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
6 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com @ 2010-02-18 14:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-02-18 14:11 -------
Gaby, I just attached a draft patch which essentially does what submitter
requested, adds the two specializations. Shall we do this?
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |gdr at integrable-solutions
| |dot net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40856
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug libstdc++/40856] numeric_limits not specialized for __int128_t or __uint128_t
2009-07-25 15:02 [Bug libstdc++/40856] New: " john dot salmon at deshaw dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2010-02-18 14:11 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
@ 2010-05-25 20:57 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
2010-05-25 21:04 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
6 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com @ 2010-05-25 20:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-05-25 20:57 -------
See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-05/msg01912.html we are going to
have __int128 and unsigned __int128.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40856
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug libstdc++/40856] numeric_limits not specialized for __int128_t or __uint128_t
2009-07-25 15:02 [Bug libstdc++/40856] New: " john dot salmon at deshaw dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2010-05-25 20:57 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
@ 2010-05-25 21:04 ` paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com
6 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com @ 2010-05-25 21:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC|paolo dot carlini at oracle |
|dot com |
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |paolo dot carlini at oracle
|dot org |dot com
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2010-05-25 21:03:55
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40856
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread