Re: [committed] libstdc++: Make __int128 meet integer-class requirements [PR 96042]

2020-08-24 Thread Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches
On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 at 16:01, Marc Glisse wrote: > > On Sat, 22 Aug 2020, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches wrote: > > > On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 at 13:13, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > >> > >> On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 at 10:52, Marc Glisse wrote: > >>> is there a particular reason to handle only __int128 this

Re: [committed] libstdc++: Make __int128 meet integer-class requirements [PR 96042]

2020-08-22 Thread Marc Glisse
On Sat, 22 Aug 2020, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches wrote: On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 at 13:13, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 at 10:52, Marc Glisse wrote: is there a particular reason to handle only __int128 this way, and not all the non-standard integer types? It looks like it would

Re: [committed] libstdc++: Make __int128 meet integer-class requirements [PR 96042]

2020-08-22 Thread Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches
On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 at 13:13, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 at 10:52, Marc Glisse wrote: > > is there a particular reason to handle only __int128 this way, and not all > > the non-standard integer types? It looks like it would be a bit simpler to > > avoid a special case. > > I

Re: [committed] libstdc++: Make __int128 meet integer-class requirements [PR 96042]

2020-08-22 Thread Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches
On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 at 13:18, JeanHeyd Meneide wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 8:14 AM Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches > wrote: > > I really wish WG14 would just fix the intmax_t mess so we can make > > them integral types unconditionally. > > We're trying, but we're struggling to reach a good

Re: [committed] libstdc++: Make __int128 meet integer-class requirements [PR 96042]

2020-08-22 Thread JeanHeyd Meneide via Gcc-patches
On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 8:14 AM Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches wrote: > I really wish WG14 would just fix the intmax_t mess so we can make > them integral types unconditionally. We're trying, but we're struggling to reach a good consensus. Almost nobody's fully agreeing on one /particular/

Re: [committed] libstdc++: Make __int128 meet integer-class requirements [PR 96042]

2020-08-22 Thread Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches
On Sat, 22 Aug 2020 at 10:52, Marc Glisse wrote: > is there a particular reason to handle only __int128 this way, and not all > the non-standard integer types? It looks like it would be a bit simpler to > avoid a special case. I have no objection to doing it for all of them, it just wasn't

Re: [committed] libstdc++: Make __int128 meet integer-class requirements [PR 96042]

2020-08-22 Thread Marc Glisse
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches wrote: Because __int128 can be used as the difference type for iota_view, we need to ensure that it meets the requirements of an integer-class type. The requirements in [iterator.concept.winc] p10 include numeric_limits being specialized and

Re: [committed] libstdc++: Make __int128 meet integer-class requirements [PR 96042]

2020-08-20 Thread Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches
On 19/08/20 20:36 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 19/08/20 17:00 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: Because __int128 can be used as the difference type for iota_view, we need to ensure that it meets the requirements of an integer-class type. The requirements in [iterator.concept.winc] p10 include

Re: [committed] libstdc++: Make __int128 meet integer-class requirements [PR 96042]

2020-08-19 Thread Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches
On 19/08/20 17:00 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: Because __int128 can be used as the difference type for iota_view, we need to ensure that it meets the requirements of an integer-class type. The requirements in [iterator.concept.winc] p10 include numeric_limits being specialized and giving