On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 5:19 PM Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 4:30 PM Joseph Myers
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 02:15:59PM +0100, Roger Sayle wrote:
>> > > Can you double check? Integer division by zero
On Tue, 21 Sep 2021, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 4:30 PM Joseph Myers
wrote:
On Tue, 21 Sep 2021, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 02:15:59PM +0100, Roger Sayle wrote:
Can you double check? Integer division by zero is undefined,
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 4:30 PM Joseph Myers
wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 02:15:59PM +0100, Roger Sayle wrote:
> > > Can you double check? Integer division by zero is undefined, but
> isn't floating point
> > > division by zero
On Tue, 21 Sep 2021, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 02:15:59PM +0100, Roger Sayle wrote:
> > Can you double check? Integer division by zero is undefined, but isn't
> > floating point
> > division by zero defined by the appropriate IEEE standards?
>
> https://eel.
t: 21 September 2021 14:22
To: Roger Sayle ; Jason Merrill
; Jonathan Wakely
Cc: 'Xi Ruoyao' ; 'GCC Patches'
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] C++ constexpr vs. floating point exceptions.
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 02:15:59PM +0100, Roger Sayle wrote:
> Can you double check? Integer
On Tue, 2021-09-21 at 21:38 +0800, Xi Ruoyao via Gcc-patches wrote:
> BTW the "correct" way to get a NaN in C++ seems:
>
> #include
> constexpr double my_nan = std::numeric_limits::quiet_NaN();
Sorry, we were discussing inf, not NaN... Then
constexpr double my_inf = std::numeric_limits::infin
On Tue, 2021-09-21 at 14:15 +0100, Roger Sayle wrote:
>
> Can you double check? Integer division by zero is undefined, but isn't
> floating point
> division by zero defined by the appropriate IEEE standards?
It's an undefined behavior in C++ standard. Even if we assume C++ *was*
IEEE-754 confor
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 3:07 PM Xi Ruoyao via Gcc-patches
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2021-09-21 at 12:41 +0100, Roger Sayle wrote:
> >
> > I was wondering if I may ask the C++ language experts for their
> > opinion
> > on whether (potential) floating point exceptions/traps can be ignored
> > in constant e
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 02:15:59PM +0100, Roger Sayle wrote:
> Can you double check? Integer division by zero is undefined, but isn't
> floating point
> division by zero defined by the appropriate IEEE standards?
https://eel.is/c++draft/expr.mul#4 doesn't make the division by zero
behavior condi
: [RFC/PATCH] C++ constexpr vs. floating point exceptions.
On Tue, 2021-09-21 at 12:41 +0100, Roger Sayle wrote:
>
> I was wondering if I may ask the C++ language experts for their
> opinion on whether (potential) floating point exceptions/traps can be
> ignored in constant expressio
On Tue, 2021-09-21 at 12:41 +0100, Roger Sayle wrote:
>
> I was wondering if I may ask the C++ language experts for their
> opinion
> on whether (potential) floating point exceptions/traps can be ignored
> in constant expressions; this is related to PR c++/96862. I think my
> question boils down
I was wondering if I may ask the C++ language experts for their opinion
on whether (potential) floating point exceptions/traps can be ignored
in constant expressions; this is related to PR c++/96862. I think my
question boils down to whether (or not) the following is valid C++:
constexpr float m
12 matches
Mail list logo
