On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Marshall Clow <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jun 4, 2014, at 5:49 PM, Nico Weber <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:21 AM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 02:51:49AM +0200, Nico Weber wrote: >>> > 21.5p4 and 21.5p11 say that std::stof() and std::stod() are both >>> supposed >>> > to call strtod() (for char*) or wcstod() (for wchar_t*). libc++ >>> currently >>> > calls strtof() / wcstof() from std::stof(), so the attached patch fixes >>> > this. >>> >>> This looks like a bug in the standard. >>> >> >> It is: >> >> http://lwg.github.io/issues/lwg-active.html#2009 >> > > Cool, thanks. I hope that proposed resolution gets a slightly more > detailed text. Similar wording in the C standard apparently implies > something along the lines of "`1.e60` is a valid IEEE 754 spelling of > INFINITY, and INFINITY is a representable value" ( > http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/dr_025.html ) (which as > far as I understand is the interpretation that e.g. musl is using, so their > strtof doesn't set ERANGE on this input.) > > > Nico — > > Since this is an active LWG bug, I’d like to hold off on your patch until > after the next committee meeting (which is the week after next). > > So it doesn’t get lost, can you open a bug, and attach the patch there. > (You can assign the bug to me) > Filed PR19954, thanks :-)
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
