public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "lrflew.coll at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/87744] Some valid instantiations of linear_congruential_engine produce compiler errors when __int128 isn't available
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2024 10:14:42 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-87744-4-uTHg27colB@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-87744-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87744

--- Comment #12 from Lewis Fox <lrflew.coll at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #2)

My original comment about libc++ was in reference to the LLVM bugzilla report
#27839: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27839

It looks like the issue you discovered is LLVM bugzilla report #34206:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34206

It seems like since I made that comment here, libc++ has updated to fix the
misuse of Schrage's algorithm (though, looking at the current source code, it
still looks wrong to me), so it does mean my initial comment is a little out of
date.

Either way, though, this issue wasn't in comparison to libc++, but rather that
libstdc++ seems to contradict the C++ standard. For reference, MSVC doesn't
have a native 128-bit integer type, but still handles these correctly by using
64-bit integer arithmetic (though MSVC could still optimize their
implementation for x86_64 using intrinsics if they wanted to).

This is a bit of an edge case that I don't think most users will encounter, so
performance is probably less important here than accuracy. I'd personally
prioritize minimizing branches (i.e. improving simplicity) than optimizing the
operand sizes for performance, but that's just my opinion.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2024-02-07 10:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <bug-87744-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2024-02-06 21:09 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-06 21:21 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-06 21:28 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-06 21:32 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-06 21:46 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-06 21:48 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-06 21:51 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-06 21:51 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-06 22:04 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-06 22:12 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-06 22:14 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-07 10:14 ` lrflew.coll at gmail dot com [this message]
2024-02-07 10:38 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-07 10:55 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-15 11:44 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-16 10:52 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-16 19:12 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-87744-4-uTHg27colB@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).