https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61166
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61166
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Fri May 16 09:30:57 2014
New Revision: 210511
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=210511&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2014-05-15 Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net>
Jonathan Wakel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61166
--- Comment #12 from Kan Liu ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #11)
> (In reply to Kan Liu from comment #10)
> > _Select_type already does the overflow check, so *template implemented
> > operators* is still redundant I think.
>
> Yo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61166
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Kan Liu from comment #10)
> _Select_type already does the overflow check, so *template implemented
> operators* is still redundant I think.
You can't use _Select_type on a literal operator th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61166
--- Comment #10 from Kan Liu ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
> I can see one good reason to implement those operators as templates: it
> allows us to check if the literal value overflows the duration::rep type,
> which is requir
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61166
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I can see one good reason to implement those operators as templates: it allows
us to check if the literal value overflows the duration::rep type, which is
required by the standard but impossible to implemen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61166
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61166
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely ---
That's correct, and the standard is clear that operator""ms(unsigned long long)
is required to return chrono::milliseconds, not some other equivalent duration
with a different Rep.
So I think the question
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61166
--- Comment #7 from Kan Liu ---
(In reply to emsr from comment #6)
> Something like parse_number was in the original doc as an implementation
> example. The idea was to select the smallest integral type that could
> accommodate the number string
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61166
--- Comment #6 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Something like parse_number was in the original doc as an implementation
example. The idea was to select the smallest integral type that could
accommodate the number string with. This is done with
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61166
--- Comment #5 from Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net> ---
Created attachment 32792
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32792&action=edit
Better patch with test case.
2014-05-13 Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61166
--- Comment #4 from Kan Liu ---
btw, is it really necessary to use functionality in parse_number.h to parse
manually? What *parse_number* has done is no more than the general
*operator""(unsigned long long)*, and it just enables *0b* and *0B* pre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61166
--- Comment #3 from Kan Liu ---
(In reply to emsr from comment #2)
> Created attachment 32789 [details]
> Patch to parse_nmber to make it unsigned long long all over.
>
> Works on x86_64-linux.
Yeah, it works. Thank you!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61166
--- Comment #2 from emsr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 32789
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32789&action=edit
Patch to parse_nmber to make it unsigned long long all over.
Works on x86_64-linux.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61166
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|kan.liu.229 at gmail dot com |3dw4rd at verizon dot
net
--- Co
15 matches
Mail list logo
