Re: [PATCH, libstdc++/61166] overflow when parse number in std::duration operator""

2014-05-16 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 15/05/14 22:54 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote: On 05/15/2014 03:03 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: Here's a finished patch to simplify Tested x86_64-linux. Ed, any objection to this version? This looks great, thanks! I committed that to trunk, I'll put it on the 4.9 branch too. Having done t

Re: [PATCH, libstdc++/61166] overflow when parse number in std::duration operator""

2014-05-15 Thread Ed Smith-Rowland
On 05/15/2014 03:03 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: Here's a finished patch to simplify Tested x86_64-linux. Ed, any objection to this version? This looks great, thanks! Having done that should we actually stop using it as suggested in the bug trail? ;-)

Re: [PATCH, libstdc++/61166] overflow when parse number in std::duration operator""

2014-05-15 Thread Jonathan Wakely
Here's a finished patch to simplify Tested x86_64-linux. Ed, any objection to this version? commit 87d26af2fc07f0c45a0a6676161ae1db1d7541b7 Author: Jonathan Wakely Date: Wed May 14 16:35:20 2014 +0100 2014-05-15 Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net> Jonathan Wakely

Re: [PATCH, libstdc++/61166] overflow when parse number in std::duration operator""

2014-05-14 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 14/05/14 15:41 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: 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

Re: [PATCH, libstdc++/61166] overflow when parse number in std::duration operator""

2014-05-14 Thread Jonathan Wakely
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 inte

Re: [PATCH, libstdc++/61166] overflow when parse number in std::duration operator""

2014-05-14 Thread Jonathan Wakely
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 alre

Re: [PATCH, libstdc++/61166] overflow when parse number in std::duration operator""

2014-05-14 Thread Ed Smith-Rowland
On 05/14/2014 09:59 AM, Daniel Krügler wrote: 2014-05-14 15:38 GMT+02:00 Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net>: Make the machinery in bits/parse_number.h unsigned long long. I had actually noticed this a while back but we were in stage 4. Then I forgot.. :-/ Built and tested on x84_64-linux. O

Re: [PATCH, libstdc++/61166] overflow when parse number in std::duration operator""

2014-05-14 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 14 May 2014 14:59, Daniel Krügler wrote: > 2014-05-14 15:38 GMT+02:00 Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net>: >> Make the machinery in bits/parse_number.h unsigned long long. >> I had actually noticed this a while back but we were in stage 4. Then I >> forgot.. :-/ >> >> Built and tested on x84_6

Re: [PATCH, libstdc++/61166] overflow when parse number in std::duration operator""

2014-05-14 Thread Daniel Krügler
2014-05-14 15:38 GMT+02:00 Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net>: > Make the machinery in bits/parse_number.h unsigned long long. > I had actually noticed this a while back but we were in stage 4. Then I > forgot.. :-/ > > Built and tested on x84_64-linux. > > OK? I understand the reason why the c

[PATCH, libstdc++/61166] overflow when parse number in std::duration operator""

2014-05-14 Thread Ed Smith-Rowland
Make the machinery in bits/parse_number.h unsigned long long. I had actually noticed this a while back but we were in stage 4. Then I forgot.. :-/ Built and tested on x84_64-linux. OK? 2014-05-14 Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net> libstdc++/61166 overflow when parse number in s