From: Gabriel Dos Reis (gdr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-31 11:22:06
Paolo Carlini <pcarlini_at_[hidden]> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
|
| >My point is that numeric_limits<> is correctly set for integer types;
| >so if you're seeing the same problem there, then it ought to be
| >something different.
| >
| I see.
| Therefore, in other terms, Nathan's analysis (see audit trail) could be
| *incorrect*.
Nathan's analysis about numeric_limits<double> is correct.
[...]
| performed much better and also 2.95.x, which has a work around, did so:
| this seemed
| to confirm Nathan's analysis.
GCC 2.95.x never had <limits>.
| Now, what should we do? Do you believe boost/random or its configury
| machinery are
| to blame or libstdc++-v3 as shipped with gcc-3.2 and gcc-3.3?
As I said earlier, the PR should be closed -- it is not a regression
and it is fixed on mainline.
-- Gaby