From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-367479-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 16688 invoked by alias); 14 May 2014 14:41:18 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 16670 invoked by uid 89); 14 May 2014 14:41:17 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients
X-HELO: mail-lb0-f169.google.com
Received: from mail-lb0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-lb0-f169.google.com) (209.85.217.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 14 May 2014 14:41:16 +0000
Received: by mail-lb0-f169.google.com with SMTP id s7so1497436lbd.14        for <multiple recipients>; Wed, 14 May 2014 07:41:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.37.229 with SMTP id b5mr2628204lak.40.1400078473060; Wed, 14 May 2014 07:41:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.125.202 with HTTP; Wed, 14 May 2014 07:41:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAH6eHdSF8NXfz328nqoS4edVNyEQLCGdiUDGzSt7=T_gQ6Jm+A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <537371EF.9080901@verizon.net>	<CAGNvRgCXLBZ9YD+8jbJaHL9PPOdusDMWrtJgAS0_d49W3RHVJA@mail.gmail.com>	<53737CF4.9090706@verizon.net>	<CAH6eHdSF8NXfz328nqoS4edVNyEQLCGdiUDGzSt7=T_gQ6Jm+A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 14:41:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAH6eHdQFfLE2fyx4vbSeZtAOGyVgekLHrGdvPQ_22n05xTRisQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, libstdc++/61166] overflow when parse number in std::duration operator""
From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
To: Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd@verizon.net>
Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Daniel_Kr=C3=BCgler?= <daniel.kruegler@gmail.com>, 	gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, "libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org" <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-SW-Source: 2014-05/txt/msg01094.txt.bz2

On 14 May 2014 15:36, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 14 May 2014 15:25, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
>> But in keeping with, say, our extension type traits and such maybe i should
>> uglify value as well.
>
> No, just derive from std::integral_constant and you get value "for free".
>
> You already use integral_constant in that file, so the name "value" is
> already used.

That also has the advantage that _Digit<B, 'f'> and _Digit<B, 'F'>
share the same base class, so you don't end up with two different
static members with the same value (and if you make __valid a typedef
as I suggested you don't have any static members for that either).

Do we really need _Digit::value to be unsigned long long, or is it
only the results in _Power_help and _Number_help that need to be
64-bit?