On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 at 13:11, Mateusz Zych <mte.z...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello! > > I've updated the ChangeLog, since I forgot to do it before.
Thanks, I've pushed the patch to trunk now. I used a simpler commit message, without the large verbatim quotes from the standard. Thanks again for noticing the problem and contributing the fix. > > Thanks, Mateusz Zych > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 9:49 PM Mateusz Zych <mte.z...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hello! >> >> I've prepared a patch, which adds all members missing from >> std::numeric_limits<> specializations for integer-class types. >> >> Jonathan, please let me know whether you like these changes >> and do not see any bugs or issues with them. From my side, I just want to >> say that: >> >> Since all std::numeric_limits<> specializations for integral types, >> defined in //libstdc++-v3/include/std/limits don't inherit from a base class >> providing common data members and member functions, >> I also didn't introduce such a base class in >> //libstdc++-v3/include/bits/max_size_type.h. >> Such implementation has quite a bit of code duplication, but it's like that >> on purpose, right? >> >> I didn't test the traps static data member, because I don't know how to >> accurately predict when this compile-time constant should be true and when >> it should be false. >> Moreover, I saw that the unit-test verifying correctness of the traps >> constant >> from std::numeric_limits<> specializations for integral types >> (//libstdc++-v3/testsuite/18_support/numeric_limits/traps.cc) also doesn't >> verify its value. >> >> In the unit-tests for integer-class types I've defined variable template >> verify_numeric_limits_values_not_meaningful_for<> to avoid code duplication >> and have clear and readable code. I hope this is OK. >> >> Thanks, Mateusz Zych >> >> On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 7:30 PM Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, 2 Jul 2025 at 17:15, Mateusz Zych wrote: >>> > >>> > OK, then I’ll prepare appropriate patch with tests and send it when I’m >>> > done implementing it. >>> >>> That would be great, thanks. I won't push the initial patch, we can >>> wait for you to prepare the complete fix. >>> >>> Please note that for a more significant change, we have some legal >>> prerequisites for contributions, as documented at: >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html#legal >>> >>> If you want to contribute under the DCO terms, please read >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/dco.html so that you understand exactly what the >>> Signed-off-by: trailer means. >>> >>> Thanks! >>>
