From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 8B21D3858D35; Fri, 9 Jun 2023 09:45:03 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 8B21D3858D35 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1686303903; bh=mP5JSJkWCQ+5Wx2LADA5Z9IvxQKTM839l3NDMuYe9Cs=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=U4UyV5BBaW3qxm2rJfFu0d8NuHvvklQZpE2gJ+9rHYELrvFwc2ssR1F5DPaMqP7qf wlfqMYTga92JWUYSgWy5KHrf+PnlnjPBQBejs8wwE406XhiR/DyHQkUjnPcARzqiFm KuDHVm9k9MceUfLWPgZYfQwUd7kthRJR0loBzOKA= From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/59974] ostream crashes on large numbers under Windows Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2023 09:45:00 +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: 4.6.3 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: everconfirmed cf_reconfirmed_on bug_status Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D59974 Jonathan Wakely changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ever confirmed|0 |1 Last reconfirmed| |2023-06-09 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely --- This should be submitted to the mailing lists for review. Ideally, with copyright assignment from Stephen, or a DCO sign-off: https://gcc.gnu.org/dco.html If this is Stephen's first GCC contribution, then maybe we can accept it, as it's only about 10 lines of logic. I'd prefer if these changes were guarded behind some #if check, so we don't add unnecessary overhead on targets that don't need it. Or at the very leas= t, use __builtin_expect to predict that the branch for handling -1 is unlikely= .=