Re: [boost] uBLAS formal review

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-01 16:51:20

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Schmitteckert (boost)" <boost_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] uBLAS formal review

> Salut,
>
> On Friday 28 June 2002 07:00, Joerg Walter wrote:
> > > types. I think this is specified by the std but I seem to recall that
> > > some compilers don't get it right. It might be safer to use
value_type(0)
> >
> > It's one of the few things we currently trust in ;-), that value_type()
> > works on every platform. If we'd get a bug report, we'd change.
>
> I'd like to ask if this is confirmed by the standard since I will be
using
> ublas on several paltforms with agressive optimization flags
> (like sse/mmx extension on ia32, -fastmath, .... )

It is.

http://anubis.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#178

describes the current state of the specification.