[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lmi] Integer overflow warnings in bourn_cast with clang
From: |
Vadim Zeitlin |
Subject: |
Re: [lmi] Integer overflow warnings in bourn_cast with clang |
Date: |
Thu, 13 Apr 2017 01:01:58 +0200 |
On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 17:42:15 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:
GC> On 2017-04-06 15:53, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
GC> > [...] But this is because I'm running tests under x86_64 Linux while
GC> > you're probably testing under 32 bit MSW -- and I do see these failures
GC> > there (I also see 539 and not 540).
GC>
GC> Whether the entire test suite reports 539 successes or 540 depends on
GC> whether 'wchar_t' is signed, because this test is run for all standard
GC> arithmetic types:
GC>
GC> template<typename T>
GC> void test_same(char const* file, int line)
GC> {
GC> ...
GC> if(limits::is_signed)
GC> {
GC> INVOKE_BOOST_TEST_EQUAL(T(-1), bourn_cast<T>(T(-1)), file, line);
GC> }
GC>
GC> Of course, it also depends on whether 'char' is signed, but 'wchar_t' is
GC> the cause of the difference between my 32-bit msw and 64-bit GNU/Linux
GC> builds.
Ah, indeed, thanks for explaining this difference!
VZ
- Re: [lmi] Integer overflow warnings in bourn_cast with clang, (continued)
- Re: [lmi] Integer overflow warnings in bourn_cast with clang, Greg Chicares, 2017/04/07
- Re: [lmi] Integer overflow warnings in bourn_cast with clang, Vadim Zeitlin, 2017/04/07
- Re: [lmi] Integer overflow warnings in bourn_cast with clang, Greg Chicares, 2017/04/09
- Re: [lmi] Integer overflow warnings in bourn_cast with clang, Vadim Zeitlin, 2017/04/09
- Re: [lmi] Integer overflow warnings in bourn_cast with clang, Greg Chicares, 2017/04/10
- Re: [lmi] Integer overflow warnings in bourn_cast with clang, Greg Chicares, 2017/04/12
- Re: [lmi] Integer overflow warnings in bourn_cast with clang,
Vadim Zeitlin <=
Re: [lmi] Integer overflow warnings in bourn_cast with clang, Greg Chicares, 2017/04/12