From: Beman Dawes (beman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-09-22 15:41:57
At 07:21 AM 9/10/2000 -0400, John Maddock wrote:
>I've been hit bt the lack of 64-bit integer support for the
>Borland/Microsoft compilers in cstdint.hpp/stdint.hpp, I've attatched a
>version of these headers which includes this support, as an artifact of
>implementation the macro BOOST_NO_INT64_T gets defined if there are no
>recognised 64-bit inegral types (this also fixes a buglet that
>boost::int64_t did not get defined if long is a 64-bit type - even though
>it was defined in global namespace).
Headers changed. Thanks!
>However this isn't quite the end of the story, because you can't use LL
>a suffix to integral constants, but have to use i64 and ui64
>C99 way around this is to use the INT64_C and UINT64_C macros to append
>correct suffix, it appears that the intent of C99 is to define these only
>if _ _STDC_CONSTANT_MACROS is defined when compiling in C++ mode - should
>we add these to stdint.h (suitably protected by #ifndef
Yes, we probably should. Would you like to contribute them?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk